The Arise Podcast

https://www.philallenjr.com

Phil is a man driven by vision, compelled to fulfill God’s calling on his life. His passion is not only to see individuals come to know and grow in a relationship with Jesus, but to see social transformation that includes addressing systems and structures that affect the everyday lives of people, especially those typically pushed to the margins because of oppression, injustices, and inequities grounded in race, gender, sexuality, ability, age, and any part of their being that does not fit the dominant group membership.

As an All-American high school basketball player, Phil attended North Carolina A&T University to play basketball and study architectural engineering. Upon his call to ministry years later, he went on to receive his Bachelors in Theological Studies, with an emphasis in Christian Ministries from The King’s University. While working as a full-time lead pastor of Own Your Faith Ministries (Santa Clarita, CA), Phil completed a Master of Arts in Theology degree from Fuller Theological Seminary, studying Christian Ethics. As a current PhD candidate in Christian Ethics, with a minor in Theology and Culture, his research involves race theory, theology, ethics, culture, and the theology and ethics of Martin Luther King, Jr.

He is founder of the non-profit organization Racial Solidarity Project based in Los Angeles, CA. His passion for dialogue, resistance, and solutions to the problem of systemic racism was fostered by his family and personal life experiences as well as his educational journey. Phil was recently named a Pannell Center for Black Church Studies Fellow at Fuller Theological Seminary. As a fellow his research on Black Church theology, liturgy, and ethics further undergirds his own ethics of justice, healing racial trauma, and racial solidarity. He has taught undergraduate classes on biblical ethics toward racial solidarity. His fields of interest include Christian ethics, Black Church studies, race theory, pneumatology, theology of justice and theology of play and sport.

When he isn’t pastoring, studying, or writing, Phil enjoys running, bowling, basketball, and just watching his favorite television shows. As an all-around creative, he is an author, a teacher, pastor, filmmaker (see his documentary Open Wounds), but first a poet. His diverse experiences and interests have gifted him with the ability to relate to and inspire just about anyone he meets.

He is the author of two books, Open Wounds: A Story of Racial Tragedy, Trauma, and Redemption (Fortress Press, 2021) and The Prophetic Lens: The Camera and Black Moral Agency From MLK to Darnella Frazier (Fortress Press, 2022).

Speaker 1 (00:13):

Welcome to the Arise podcast, conversations on faith, race, justice, gender, and the church. And tune in and listen to this conversation today. Dr. Phil Allen, Jr and myself are going to have a conversation today. And if you go to his website, phil allen jr.com, you can see that his quote is Justice Matters, my neighbors Matter, creation matters, faith Matters. And really in this conversation, I want you to pay attention to those points that he makes in this quote from his website and how that filters through in the research he does in the point of view he's bringing to the table for this conversation on what are we doing? And I think a lot of people are like, are we still talking about the Yes, we're still talking about it. Yes. It's still relevant and we're talking about it because from understanding creates pathways towards action, towards organizing, towards being together with one another in community so that we can support justice, so that we can support our neighbors so that we have faith in creator. And so I want to encourage you to listen through that lens. Go find his website, phil allen jr.com. Look up this amazing man, this professor, he's got a podcast, he's got books, poetry speaking, a documentary. Don't hesitate to reach out, but as you listen, focusing on justice Neighbor and creation and Faith.

(01:48):

Yeah. What has it been like for you since the election? Or what's that been like

Speaker 2 (01:57):

Since the election? The first couple of days were, I was a bit numb. I was very disappointed in 2016. I wasn't surprised. I had this feeling that he was going to win, even though people thought Hillary would win. I just didn't have the confidence in those battleground swing state. I thought he represented something that a lot of people in this country are drawn to. And this year I really felt like she was going to win. Vice President Harris was going to win because of the coalition, because of the momentum. People can critique and criticize her campaign, but there's nothing orthodox about starting a hundred days before. And I think what they did was calculated. I won't say perfect, but it was good. It was a solid campaign given what she had to work with. And I really thought she would win. And I was just extremely disappointed. It was like this heaviness over me, but then after day two, things started to feel a little bit lighter. I just put things in perspective. I wasn't going to sulk and sit in some sadness because this man won. I think I was more disappointed in the people like what is our standard, particularly Christians, conservative Christians, what is the standard now? How low is the bar?

(04:04):

And honestly, I don't know if there's anyone else on the planet, any other demographic that could have done that with 34 felonies saying the things that he says about people of color, about women, about veterans. I mean, he just literally does not care. There's no man or woman of color. There's no woman, there's no one else that could do that. And people would ignore everything, do theological gymnastics and to justify everything and still vote for 'em. No one else could pull it off. And I think for me, it just solidified the type of country we live in. So I'm good now, as good as I can be. I can't change it, so I'm not going to sulk and be sad. I'm going to continue to do the work that God has called me to do and continue to chat, put a video out. I think you may have seen it on social media just to put my thoughts out there, put words to my feelings and just move forward. Yep.

Speaker 1 (05:24):

When you think about, is it okay if I ask you a couple of questions?

Speaker 3 (05:28):

Yeah.

Speaker 1 (05:29):

When you think about your research and completing your PhD and the theory and work and the evidence and structures you uncovered in that research, then how does that continue to frame your outlook for where we are today? It

Speaker 2 (05:52):

Couldn't, this election was interesting. This election confirmed for me, my research,

Speaker 1 (05:59):

Yes.

Speaker 2 (06:02):

I'll give you one part of it. In my research I talk about the plantation complex and it's made up of three major categories and there are subcategories under each one, organizing properties, modes of power, and operating practices. Three major categories Under organizing properties, there are four properties I list. I'm not saying it's an exhaustive list. Someone else might come in and want to tweak it and change it. That's fine. What I came up with is for vision covenant, spatial arrangement and epistemology, and specifically theological scientific epistemology, specifically white racial covenant. For those two, those are the specific terms I use. And to me, vice President Harris asked a question, this is about what kind of country do we want? That's a statement about what kind of vision do you have? Would you like to see this country embody? So vision is always there. We're always talking about, we're always casting vision when we tell stories, when we talk about how we want the, whether it's the education system, immigration, whatever. We're casting a vision, but what do we want to see? And then that ends up driving so much of what we

Speaker 3 (07:45):

Do.

Speaker 2 (07:48):

We have the vision now of this is what America wants.

Speaker 1 (07:52):

Yes,

Speaker 2 (07:54):

They want this man with all, he's not just a flawed human being, in my opinion. He's a vile human being. She also is not a perfect candidate. She's a decent woman. She's a decent person. Two vastly different visions for this country. Then you talk about spatial arrangement. Electoral college is about spatial arrangement. You have your blue states, your red states, but everything comes down to five or six. Sometimes one state decides the election, and it all depends on who's living in that state, how are the districts redrawn. All types of stuff can play out. But to me, I saw that going on and then I saw white racial covenant play out. You look at who voted for who, percentage wise, and I kept seeing this allegiance, this covenant with Donald Trump, and there had to have been independents and even some Democrats that voted for him to have voted at such a high clip when his base is only 37%, 40% at most, and a Republican party is half. And he gets, I don't know. I just started to see those things play out. And from my dissertation, just those four categories, the stuff that we don't even pay attention to, they shape society, vision, spatial arrangement, covenant whose allegiance, who has your allegiance, because that drives decision making that drives what you value. It influences what you value. And epistemology, theological, scientific epistemology, he's the chosen one.

(10:03):

God chose him for such a time as the, I keep hearing this language. So they're using theological language to justify everything about this man. So yeah.

Speaker 1 (10:18):

Yeah.

Speaker 2 (10:19):

It's hard for me not to see through that lens. Now that I spent six years researching it, it's hard for me not to see through those lenses the lens of power, how power is operating, what type of power is operating and the practices and all that stuff.

Speaker 1 (10:38):

There's so much you said that I know we could jump into. Particularly when you talk about the white racial covenant. I was struck at, there's intersection between our research areas, and I was thinking about in grad school before I even got into my post-grad research, I wrote about three things for the Latinx Latino community that kind of inform the way white supremacy has infiltrated our lives. One is silence, one is compliance, and then lastly is erasure. And as we saw the swing, and they've talked ad nauseum about Latinos when we are a minimal part of the electoral vote, but they've talked ad nauseum about the movement specifically of men. But when you think of the demand to be silent over centuries, the demand to comply, and then the sense that maybe I can erase myself and what can I trade in for the good graces to get into the good graces of white racial identity and vote against my own best interests, vote against protecting my community, vote against even maybe even protecting my grandma or my kid that's on daca, et cetera. What was the cost? And as you were explaining that, I was seeing it through that lens that you were describing.

Speaker 2 (12:17):

Yep, yep. What's interesting is one of the practices, I talk about tokenization on the plantation or some would say tokenism, and there's always white racial covenant is not just among white people.

(12:42):

It's anyone from any group, including my community. Those who want, they want to be in closer proximity to whiteness. They want to be accepted into the white way of being. And when I say whiteness, you understand what I'm saying? I'm not just talking about white persons or white ethnicity. We're talking about a way of being in the world, a lens through which you see the world and move in that. And you can be a person of color and totally embrace whiteness, internalize that it only takes a few to then that's an effort to legitimize it, to legitimize. See, look at those. Look at that black guy or that Latino seed. They get it, and it further legitimizes that worldview.

Speaker 1 (13:38):

Yeah. I know for me, I felt so deeply, I don't think disappointment is the right word, but maybe I felt betrayed, but also I felt deeply, I just felt the weight of what centuries have done. And then I think it was like a Sunday afternoon where he's in Madison Square Garden using the most vile of comments, the most vile of comments to degrade our race, our ethnicity, where we come from, and then to turn around and garner a vote. I mean, it fits into your theory.

Speaker 2 (14:26):

So think about what he said when he first ran in 2016. I can stand on Fifth Avenue in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and I won't lose any votes. Now, fast forward to 2024 in Madison Square Garden, the lineup, the things he said, he didn't condemn anything. He invites white supremacists into his home for dinner. He welcomes them. He literally does not care because he understands the allegiance, not just from his base, but even those adjacent to his base. And that's why I keep saying, how low is this bar that you can have those people? Because everyone thought, oh, this is it. That just killed it for 'em. It did not matter. No, it did not matter. Some of it is, I think based on race, and some of it is based on gender. Some of it's a combination of both. And that's why I said in my video, she didn't stand a chance anytime people kept saying, we need to hear more and I need to get to know her more. Well, what are you watching?

Speaker 3 (15:47):

What

Speaker 2 (15:47):

Else do you need to know? She's told her whole story over and over again. She's literally laid out bullet point, what she wants to do. What else is there half the people who say that don't even understand these concepts anyway?

Speaker 3 (16:04):

Yeah,

Speaker 2 (16:05):

They don't understand it. They're not understand this stuff.

Speaker 1 (16:11):

I guess what you say, really, it triggered something in my mind and see what you do with it. He stood in Madison Square Garden, and I actually wonder now, looking at it with the lens of a tiny bit of space that maybe if even that was riveting for people, even some of the adjacent people of color that voted for him, because it's riveting that someone could have that much power and get away with it and move in the world without consequence. And I think a lot of people are looking for that sort of autonomy or freedom to move or it's appealing. The power of it is appealing in a way that I didn't think about it before you said it, and I don't know that that's it, but I get curious about it because it definitely didn't take any votes away.

Speaker 2 (17:09):

And I'm glad you used the word curious because we're just theorizing right now, sharing opinions how we feel. And so I'm curious as well about a lot of these things. I'm just at a loss for words. I don't even know how to wrap my mind around that. I do think is an appeal though. I do think there is in my dissertation that the type of power that I talk about is autocratic ideological power where the ideology, it's not a person, the autonomous sovereign power. And I borrowed from Fuko, so I'm using a little bit of fuko, Michelle Fuko, and he uses the term sovereign power like king, a dictator, Vladimir Putin type of person. And I'm saying, don't have a king. And it's not one person with that type of autonomy, but there's an ideology that has that type of autonomy and we can add appeal, and it's the ideology of white supremacy. And it's almost like, well, he should be able to get away with that subconsciously. Not saying that people are saying that consciously, but it's almost like it's normalized like he should because had she said any of those things, oh, she shouldn't say those things. How dare she?

(18:44):

Or if Obama, when Obama said they clinging to their guns and their religion, they wanted to crucify. He shouldn't say those things. How dare he? But Trump can say, grab him by the lose no votes,

Speaker 1 (19:04):

Right?

Speaker 2 (19:06):

I don't like some of the things that he says. I wish he would tone down some of the things that he says, but so there's an autonomy. So where is it? Is it in him or is it in the ideology that he embodies? And it's appealing because so many people can share in that on different levels. So the idea is that if you go back to the plantation, every white person had some level of power over a black body and immunity, unless they got in trouble with a slave owner for killing or damaging

Speaker 1 (19:45):

Property.

Speaker 2 (19:47):

But every person on every level shared to varying degrees in this autocracy of ideology, autocracy of white supremacy, same thing is happening today. So he can say it, the comedian can say it, congressmen and women can say it, Marjorie till green can say whatever she wants. Gates can say, I mean, these people can say whatever they want, especially if they're in closer proximity to him because he is the ultimate right now, the ultimate embodiment of the superiority of whiteness. And so there is this subconscious, I think, appeal to that. How we are drawn to the bad guy in the film. We're drawn to the villain in the wrestling match. We just kind of drawn to them a bit. There's an appeal to that type of power and to get away with it. So I like that word appeal to it,

Speaker 1 (21:04):

Man. I mean, I started getting really scared as you were talking because this power and this appeal and the way you're describing it, well, how did you say it? The ideology or is, what did you call it? Autonomous power

Speaker 2 (21:27):

Autocratic. Ideological power.

Speaker 1 (21:29):

Autocratic. Ideological power isn't just one person. It's embodied in this feeling. And that I think fits with the way I'm thinking. I got scared as you were talking because it's been hyper-focused on immigration and on a certain group of people so you can gain proximity to power. And I kind of wonder how is that going to play out? How will people play that out in their imaginations or in their communities is like what gets them closer to that power? Especially if, I mean, we could debate on tariffs and all that stuff, but no one I'm hearing from is telling me that tariffs are going to bring down the cost of goods. I've heard that nowhere. So then what are you going to do if you feel more hopeless and you're part of that working, let's say white or white adjacent class, where will you focus your energy? What can you control? So I think as you were talking, I started getting scared. I was like, this is a dangerous thing.

Speaker 2 (22:34):

So here's what I've told someone. Sadly, the only person who could have beaten Trump in 2020 was Joe Biden, a white man. A white woman wouldn't have been able to do it. Black woman, black man, Latino, Asian. It took a white man because people still needs to be, they needed to vote against him. They needed to see themselves. That's the majority of the country. They need to see themselves. Biden wasn't the best candidate by far. No, but he was the only one who could beat

Speaker 1 (23:16):

Trump.

Speaker 2 (23:17):

Now, he wasn't going to win this election, even though Trump has shown signs over the last year or so of aging, doesn't matter. He's loud and boisterous. So he gets a little bit of a pass. But guess what? If that hopelessness sets in the left, the Democrats are going to have to present another white man. You're not going to beat the part. You're not going to win the next election with someone other than a white man to beat this. He is the embodiment. He is the golden calf. You need at least a beige calf. You're not going to win the next election with with someone that looks like me or you, or its going to be, that's the sad part. So with that hopelessness, if they feel that and they feel like, okay, it is been the last four years has not been what he's promised, you're going to have to present them with an alternative that's still adjacent, at least in aesthetics, optics. And then you might, after that, if everything is going well, now someone can come off of that. This is the unfortunate reality. Biden is the only one that was going to be able to beat him in 2020, and I think it's going to take the same thing in 2020. It's definitely going to take a man because he's got the movement, the masculine movement. He's brought that up to serve. It's going to take a man to do it. Unfortunately, a woman may not be able to push back against that, but I think it's going to have to take a white man.

Speaker 1 (25:08):

Yeah, I think you're right. I don't think another female can win against him. There's no way

Speaker 2 (25:15):

He embodies the ideology of white in his posture, his tone, his rhetoric, his height, everything about him embodies, if you look at the history in this country of whiteness is the physical manifestation of it. And I'm not the only one that has said that.

Speaker 1 (25:37):

No,

Speaker 2 (25:39):

He is not just a physical manifestation. He is, at least in this era, he is the manifestation of it. He is the embodiment of it, attitude and everything.

Speaker 1 (25:59):

Yeah, I guess you just find me silent because I believe you. It's true. There's no doubt in my mind. And it's also stunning that this is where we're at, that people, again, I mean to fall back on what you've researched, people chose the plantation owner,

Speaker 2 (26:31):

And many people who do don't see themselves in the position of the enslaved,

Speaker 1 (26:39):

No,

Speaker 2 (26:39):

They see themselves as benefiting from or having favor from the plantation owner. They're either the overseer or the driver, or they're one of the family members or guests on the plantation. But no one's going to willingly choose a system that they don't benefit from. So they believe they will benefit from this, or they're willing to accept some treatment for the promise of prosperity. That's the other issue that we have. People see this. They see the world through an economic lens only. For me, I got to look at the world through a moral lens, an ethical lens. That's how I'm trained, but that's just how I've always been. Because if I look at it through an economic lens, I'll put up with anything, as long as you can put money in my pocket, you can call me the N word. If that's my, you can probably call me the N word. As long as you put money in my pocket, I'll tolerate it. And that's unfortunately how people see, again, when people talk about the economy, how many people understand economics,

Speaker 1 (27:53):

Honestly, what

Speaker 2 (27:54):

Percentage they do understand how much it's costing me to pay these groceries. What they don't understand is the why underneath all that, because I think they did one thing they could have done better. The Democrats is explain to people corporate greed. The cost of living is always going up. It may drop a little bit, but it's always doing this.

Speaker 1 (28:29):

But Phil, I would argue back with you that I don't think these people wanted to understand.

Speaker 2 (28:35):

You don't have to argue. I agree. I

Speaker 1 (28:38):

Talked to some folks and I was like, dude, tariffs, your avocado's going to be $12. They mostly come from Mexico. How are you going to afford an avocado? And it's like, it didn't

Speaker 2 (28:52):

Matter. The golden calf.

Speaker 1 (28:57):

The golden calf, Elliot comes back. I mean, I want to work to make these people, in a sense, ignorant. I want to work to think of it like that, not because it benefits me, but maybe it does. To think that some people didn't vote with the ideas that we're talking about in mine, but they absolutely did.

Speaker 2 (29:23):

And I think you're dead on. It's a willingness or unwillingness to want to know. I'm just simply saying that many don't. You may see people interviewed on television or surveys, or even when you talk to people, I'm just simply saying they don't really understand. I got three degrees. I still need to read up and study and understand economics. That's not my field, right? So I'm still learning the nuances and complexities of that, but I'm a researcher by nature. Now most people aren't. So I'm just simply saying that they just don't know. They think they know, but they really don't. But a more accurate description of that is what you just said. Most people are unwilling to know. Because here's the thing, if you learn the truth about something or the facts about something, now you're forced to have to make a decision you might not want to make.

Speaker 1 (30:28):

Exactly. That's exactly right. Yep.

Speaker 2 (30:35):

It's like wanting to ban books and erase history and rewrite history. Because if you really did, to this day, whether I'm teaching or having conversations, I share basic stuff, stuff about history. And there's so many people that I never knew that, and I knew this stuff when I was a kid. I never knew that. What are we learning? Is everything stem.

Speaker 1 (31:11):

When Trump referenced the operation under Eisenhower Wetback, operation Wetback, I knew about that. I had researched it after high school in college, and I knew at that point, part of the success of that project was that they were able to deport citizens and stem the tide of, they didn't want them having more kids or reproducing, so they got rid of entire families. That was very intentional. That's purposeful. And so when they talk about deporting criminals, well, there just aren't that many criminals to deport. But for the Latino to understand that they would have to give up the idea that they could become adjacent to that power structure and benefit.

Speaker 2 (32:12):

Absolutely.

Speaker 1 (32:14):

You

Speaker 2 (32:14):

Have to give up something.

Speaker 1 (32:15):

You have to give up something. And so they traded in their grandma, literally, that's what's going to happen.

Speaker 2 (32:27):

And so now there's a connection between the golden calf and fear. So not only is he the idol, but he has the rhetoric to tap the fear, the anxiety. And when you've been in majority for a few hundred years now, the idea of no longer being the majority in the country scares a lot of people. It doesn't scare people of color. We don't really think about it because we've always been the minority. And I don't think one group is going to be the majority, maybe the Latino community because of immigration one day, maybe, probably not in my lifetime, but most of us are used to being in the minority that scares the dominant group, the white group. I've had conversations within the church years ago where this anxiety, not just with Latinos, but Muslims,

Speaker 1 (33:41):

Yep, Muslims

Speaker 2 (33:42):

As well. This fear that they're having so many more babies than we are, and how they try to pull people of color who are Americans into this by saying they're trying to have more babies than Americans. So now they want us to also have this fear of the other. So you got the idol who has the rhetoric to tap into the sentiments,

Speaker 1 (34:13):

Right? Yeah. Sorry, keep going. No,

Speaker 2 (34:15):

Go on. Go, go.

Speaker 1 (34:17):

Well, I mean, it just brings up the whole idea of when he said, the migrants are taking the black jobs. I was like, what jobs are these? And the intent is only to divide us.

Speaker 2 (34:31):

Yes. So I've had conversations with some African-Americans who I know are not, I know these people. These are just random people. They're not as in tune with politics. They're just kind of speaking the taglines that they heard. And I said, what jobs are they taking? And they can't answer that. But it's the same thing that happened 400 years ago almost. When they created the very terms white and black. There was this revolt among poor whites and poor and enslaved black people, particularly in Virginia. And I'm thinking of Bacon's Rebellion and how do you defeat that coalition? You divide them, you find a way to divide them. How's that? They came up with the term 1670s. They came up with the term white and black, and they had a range, I think it was somewhat white, almost white. White, somewhat black, almost black, black. But they had the termed white and black. And if you were of European descent, you could now be considered a white person. And with that came privileges, or as WEB, the voice would say the wages of whiteness, the

Speaker 1 (35:55):

Wages

Speaker 2 (35:55):

Of you could own property. And if you own a certain amount of property, you could vote. You could be a citizen. You had freedom of mobility. If you were black, you were meant to be enslaved in perpetuity. So now the poor whites, even though they did not benefit from slavery,

Speaker 3 (36:20):

Because

Speaker 2 (36:22):

The free enslaved Africans took the opportunities from poor whites who were able to work the land and earn some type of money, but now you've got free labor. So slavery actually hurt them. And the hierarchy, it hurt them. Wealthy white folks did not look well upon for white people. But why were they so had such allegiance? Because they had this identity, this membership into whiteness. And at least they weren't on the bottom.

Speaker 1 (37:04):

At least they weren't on the bottom. That's right.

Speaker 2 (37:07):

And so the same tactic is happening here is find a way to divide black and brown, divide black and Palestinian divide, because you knew black women were going to vote 90 plus percent. I thought black men would be 80 plus percent. Turns out they were 78, 70 9%. I thought black men would've been a little bit higher than that, but you knew black folks were going to vote in mass. But you find a way to divide and separate others from that coalition.

Speaker 1 (37:53):

Yeah. Well, here we are, Phil. What gives you, and I know we could talk about this for a long time. What are you operating on right now? I know you said you're not going to wallow in the sadness at the very beginning, but what is your organizing moment? What is your faith compelling you to do in this moment? How do you see the coming year?

Speaker 2 (38:19):

I am doubling down on my voice being more direct, being more the truth teller. I never want to lose truth with grace. I don't want to become the thing I disdain, but it is through my writing that I'm now doubling down and able to publish and put out what I believe is truth. It's factually based evidence-based. Some may call controversial, some may not. I don't know. But that's where I put my energy because I have more energy now to do that since I graduated, so I can invest more time, whether it's working on my next book, project op-Eds articles in the next year. So that's what I'm hoping to write. I'm hoping to take a lot of what I learned in the last six years and put it out there for the world. So it is just motivating me even more, whether it's poetry, academic stuff, teaching, and I've already been doing some of that. I just have the energy now to engage more.

Speaker 1 (39:54):

And sadly, you have more material to work with.

Speaker 2 (39:57):

Yeah, yeah, that's

Speaker 1 (39:59):

True. It's happening in real time. Yeah,

Speaker 2 (40:03):

Real time.

Speaker 1 (40:05):

Well, how can folks get ahold of you if they want to invite you to be part of their group or to come speak or

Speaker 2 (40:12):

Easiest would be phil allen jr.com. And they can go to, and you can email me through there, social media on Instagram, Phil Allen Jr. PhD, Facebook at Phil Allen Jr. Not the author page, the personal page. I'm still trying to delete the author page, but for whatever reason, Facebook makes it very difficult to delete your own page.

Speaker 1 (40:42):

They do,

Speaker 2 (40:44):

But Phil Allen Jr. My personal page is on Facebook. Those are only two social media platforms I have other than threads. Phil Allen, Jr. PhD on Instagram and Threads, Phil Allen Jr. On Facebook, Phil Allen jr.com, and those are the ways to reach me.

Speaker 1 (41:04):

How can folks get ahold of the writing you've already done in your research and read more about what we've been talking about? How can they get ahold of what you've already done?

Speaker 2 (41:15):

So my first two books, open Wounds and the Prophetic Lens, you can get 'em on Amazon, would love it if you could purchase a copy and after you've read, even if you read some of it and you felt led to leave a review, that helps. I'm currently revising my dissertation so that it's more accessible, so I'm changing, you get it, the academic language, that's not my true voice. So I'm trying to revise that so I can speak and sound more like me, which is more of a poetic voice. So I want to write in that sweet spot where it's still respected and used in academic spaces, but it's more accessible to people beyond academia who are interested in the subject matter. So that hopefully, I've been shopping it to publishers and I'm still shopping. So hopefully, if not next fall, hopefully by early 2026, that book can be published.

Speaker 3 (42:21):

Okay.

Speaker 2 (42:24):

The dissertation, you can go to ProQuest and you can type in my name Phil Allen Jr. You can type in the plantation complex.

Speaker 3 (42:35):

Okay.

Speaker 2 (42:36):

No, not the Plantation Complex America. The Plantation

Speaker 1 (42:41):

America, the Plantation.

Speaker 2 (42:43):

That's the title. And it's on proquest.com. That's where dissertations are published. So right now, it may cost something to read it, to get ahold of it, but you can look for it there until we revise and rewrite and publish the book.

Speaker 1 (43:01):

I'm really looking forward to, I haven't read your dissertation, but I want to, and I'm really looking forward to reading that book that's coming out.

Speaker 2 (43:09):

Thank you. Yes. And my YouTube channel, I don't really talk much. You can just type in my name, Phil Allen, Jr. There's quite a few spoken word videos, some old sermons I on there as well.

Speaker 1 (43:25):

Okay. Thank you, Phil.

Speaker 2 (43:29):

Lemme stop. Thank you.

Speaker 1 (43:32):

Thank you for joining us today, and I'm just honored to be in conversation with folks that are on this journey. We are not alone. If you need other kinds of resources, please don't hesitate to look up in our notes, some of the resources we listed in previous episodes, and also take good care of your bodies.

Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.

Trigger Warning: Proceed only if you are comfortable with potentially sensitive topics.

This is not psychological advice, service, or prescriptive treatment for anxiety or depression. The content related to descriptions of depression, anxiety, or despair may be upsetting or triggering, but are clearly not exhaustive. If you should feel symptoms of depression and/or anxiety, please seek professional mental health services, or contact (in Kitsap County) Kitsap Mobile Crisis Team at  1-888-910-0416. The line is staffed by professionals who are trained to determine the level of crisis services needed. Depending on the need, this may include dispatching the KMHS Mobile Crisis Outreach Team for emergency assessment. 

In the Words and Voice of Rebecca W. Walston:

Anticipatory intelligence  is a phrase that I heard at a seminar talking about racial trauma. The speaker whose name I can't remember, was talking about this idea of a kind of intelligence that is often developed by marginalized people. And because this was a seminar on racial trauma in the United States, her examples were all primarily around racialized experiences as the United States understand that sense of racialized society. And so the idea of anticipatory intelligence is the amount of effort or energy that we put in emotionally, mentally, psychologically, to anticipating how our bodies and the stories that they represent will be received in a space that we are in before we get there.

Speaker 1 (00:18):

Welcome to the Arise podcast, conversations on faith, race, justice, gender, and spirituality. In this episode, I get to interview my dear friend, Rebecca Wheeler Walston, and we are talking about anticipatory intelligence. I think all of us, or at least most of the people I speak with lately when I'm like, how are you doing? They're like, and they're like, well, that's a complicated answer. And it definitely is. There's an underlying sense of unease, of discontent, of just a lack of surety, about what is going to come next in the new year that I think I haven't felt for a long time. The collective sense that I have right now as you listen to this episode and take a sneak peek into some of the conversations Rebecca and I have had for a while, I encourage you to be kind to your body Again. I've put in previous episodes, resources, get out, get mental health care, spend time with friends, play, go play pickleball, get out in the snow, read a good book, text a friend, call a friend.

(01:37):

Do the things that connect you back to life giving activities. Find your spiritual practices, light candles, take a bath. All these things that therapists often say are helpful. I mean, maybe it's you go hug a tree or put your feet, your literal bare feet in the dirt. I don't know what it is for you, but leaning on the people and the resources in your area and also leaning on things that connect you back to groundedness, to feeling in your body. And so those are the things that I do. I enjoy lately eating Honey Nut Cheerios. Sounds weird. I love Dry Honey Nut Cheerios. I don't know why, but I let myself indulge in that. So again, I'm not prescribing anything to anyone. This is not a prescription, a diagnosis, a treatment plan. It is saying, how can you find ways to ground yourself in really good healthy ways that you can actually care for your good body?

(02:50):

I don't enjoy talking about anxiety. I don't love it. In fact, talking about it sometimes I feel really anxious in the moment my heart starts pounding, I get sweaty hands, et cetera. And yet there is something grounding for me about stepping into shared realities with my friends or neighbor, colleague or family. And so this is a reality that Rebecca and I have been talking about. What is anticipatory intelligence? And I'm going to let her jump in and start it off here. Hey, Rebecca, I know you and I chat a lot, and part of our talks are like, Hey, how you doing? Hey, how am I doing? And a while back when I reached out to you and said, Hey, let's do this thing way before the election on anxiety and race. And you're like, wait a minute. I want to talk about this thing called anticipatory intelligence. And so I want to hear about that from you. What is that?

Speaker 2 (03:51):

Hey, Danielle, as always, Hey, hey,

(03:56):

Post 2024 election, I'm going to just take a huge breath and say that I've had this low grade sort of nausea in my gut for at least a week, if not longer. So yeah, let's talk. So anticipatory intelligence is a phrase that I heard at a seminar talking about racial trauma. The speaker whose name I can't remember, was talking about this idea of a kind of intelligence that is often developed by marginalized people. And because this was a seminar on racial trauma in the United States, her examples were all primarily around racialized experiences as the United States understand that sense of racialized society. And so the idea of anticipatory intelligence is the amount of effort or energy that we put in emotionally, mentally, psychologically, to anticipating how our bodies and the stories that they represent will be received in a space that we are in before we get there.

(05:23):

So it's that notion of I'm a black woman, I'm getting ready to go to a function that I anticipate will likely be predominantly white. And the kind of internal conversation I have with myself about what that's going to feel like look like to enter the question in my mind of how safe or how dangerous might the environment be to me racially? So the first piece of anticipatory intelligence is that sort of internal conversation that we may be having with ourselves as we step into a circumstance. The second piece of that is when we arrive in the space and we start to read the room,

(06:12):

Read the faces of the people in the room, and this work of how close was my hypothesis or my theory about my reception in the room to what I'm actually seeing and feeling and hearing in the room as I enter the space is that sort of second piece of anticipatory intelligence. And then the third piece of it is really this question of how do I navigate that answers to those first two questions? And so what is my body, my brain, my emotions, my spirit, my gut, all of it doing with what I'm reading of the faces in the room and the reaction to me being there could be a positive space. I could get there and realize that the people in the room are all receptive to my presence and what I'm reading and feeling is a sense of welcome and warmth and an invitation for all of me to be in the room. And then what does that feel like in terms of the letdown of anxiety and the ability to absorb that sense of welcome and to participate in that sense of welcome? Or it could be a hostile environment. And what I'm reading is something that isn't welcome,

(07:44):

Something that feels like fill in the blank, resentment, who knows?

(07:53):

And then what does my body do with that? What does my gut do with that? What does my emotions, what does my spirit do? And how do I react and respond to what I'm actually reading in the room? So you can hear that sense of three steps, and sometimes that can happen over a matter of days, weeks as we build up to something. Sometimes that can happen in a matter of seconds as we enter a room, but the amount of effort and energy that is expended and the idea that you can actually develop a very well thought through grid for this as a kind of intelligence that can be yours individually might belong to your group. Collectively idea of how we anticipate and then how we engage a space based on and in this race, it could be extended to gender,

Speaker 3 (08:58):

Religion

Speaker 2 (09:00):

In this day and age, probably politics and any other places where we find intersectionality of the pieces of our identity.

Speaker 1 (09:11):

I had to take a deep breath because it is this giant reframing and pathologizing of what a lot of us walk around with, which is an internal disruption as we move from space to space.

Speaker 2 (09:29):

Yeah, I think that's true. And I mean, I think about it as a black woman, as a black mother raising two kids, I have taught my kids this notion of, I didn't call it that there's too many syllables and SAT words, but I have taught my kids a sense of pay attention to people and places and sounds and vibes and nonverbal communication and verbal communication and learn to interpret and decipher and then do what is necessary to keep yourself safe and do what is necessary to enjoy and participate in places where you're actually welcome.

Speaker 1 (10:17):

When that intersects with the concepts of Western psychology, let's say, where we're as a part of that system, there's this constant move to how do we heal anxiety, how do we work towards calm? How do we work towards finding a quote safe space? And I think it's becoming more and more evident in our current society. It's evident to many before, but I think some people are jostled into the reality that there might not be that safe space or you might have to understand anxiety differently than the western psychological framework. Have you thought about that?

Speaker 2 (11:04):

Yeah. I mean, couple of things, right? Is that in western sort of psychological space, the phrase that's usually engaged is something called hypervigilant. This idea that the time you spend reading a room and your sense of threat and the need to be vigilant about your own safety, the concept of hypervigilance is to say that you're overreacting

Speaker 3 (11:36):

To

Speaker 2 (11:37):

The space and you have a kind of vigilance that is unnecessary. You have a kind of vigilance that is a trigger to some threat that doesn't actually exist. And therefore you as the person who is doing this anticipatory work, needs to rea acclimate to the room and engage the room as if you are safe and to reimagine or recalibrate your sense of threat to an idea that it doesn't exist and it's not there. And one of the things that I would pose is that's a false reality for marginalized people in the United States. The sense of a lack of safety is present and it's real. And therefore, could we be talking about a necessary kind of vigilance as opposed to an over reactive hypervigilance?

(12:45):

So that's kind of one way that I think is a necessary exploration, and it requires the country to wrestle with the truth and the why and how of the lack of safety for marginalized people, whether that is on racial lines or gender lines or whatever power structure we are engaging. There's always the question of those in power and those who are not. And if in that moment you are in the category of the disempowered and the disenfranchised, then a sense of your own vigilance might actually be the wisest, kindest thing you can do. And the error of modern psychology to pathologize that is the problem. The other thing that I think about because you use the word safety, and I did too often, and of the growing belief that the idea that I can be safe in an absolute sense is probably a misnomer at best, an illusion at worst. And so there can there be this sense of safer environments or safe ish environments or even the suggestion that I've heard in recent years of a sense of bravery instead of safety, the ability for the space, the room to hold, the idea that if there's a power differential, there's going to be a safety differential.

(14:31):

And so the question is not am I safe? The question is the level of courage or bravery that I may need to access in order to step into a room and note that there is a certain amount of of safety.

Speaker 1 (14:50):

And I think that can be played out on all levels. I mean, I attended a training on immigrant rights and one of the things they mentioned is that ICE has the ability, the immigration service has the ability to use a digital format on online form to write their own warrant. Now, we know that regular police cannot write their own warrant.

(15:16):

We know that ice can also obtain a warrant through the courts, but when you have an empowered police body to write their own warrant, even if you're not in an immigrant, what is a sense that you're going to actually be safe or you're going to walk into a room where there are those power differentials no matter what your race or ethnicity is. If you are not of the dominant class, what's the sense that you're going to feel safe in that power differential? I think as I hear you say, I don't want to go to the extreme that it's an illusion, but I do agree that each step out is a step of bravery. And some days we may have the bravery and the data points that say, despite this anticipation of potential harm, I'm going to be able to work through that today and I'm going to be with people who can work through that with me, even through the power differential. And I think in the coming days, and there's going to be times when we say I can't step into that space because of what I anticipate, not because I'm a coward, but because it may lead to more harm than I can metabolize.

Speaker 2 (16:27):

Yeah, I mean the word safe has its problem. So does the word brave, right? Because again, the weight of that word is on the marginalized person in many ways to push path, the power differential and show up anyway. And there's something about that weight and the imbalance of it that feels wildly unfair, but historically true.

(17:00):

And so what I love about your sense of there might be some days I do not have it in me, and then can we come to that moment with the reverence and the kindness and the sanctity that deserves for me and my individual capacity to say I don't have it today? And I say that knowing that most of us come from, I come from a cultural backdrop, a collective story around blackness and the black bravery and black courage and black power and black rights. That doesn't always give me space to say I don't have it in me. I don't have that bravery today. I don't have access to it. I come from a cultural narrative that screams we shall overcome in a thousand different ways. And so you can hear in that both a hope and then a demand that you find the capacity in every moment to overcome. And we don't have a lot of stories where you get to say, I don't have it. And I have some curiosity for you as a Latino woman, do you have those stories, those cultural narratives that give you permission to say, I don't have access to the kind of bravery that I need for today?

Speaker 1 (18:40):

That's a really good question. As you were speaking, I was thinking of the complexity of the constructed racial identity for Latinos, which is often a combination as you know, we've talked about it, a lot of indigenous African and then European ancestry. And so I often think of us coming into those spaces as negotiators. How do we make this okay for dominant culture folks? Can we get close enough to power to make it okay? Which is a costly selling out of one part of ourselves. And I think the narrative is like when you hear nationally, why do Latinos vote this way even though the electoral percentage is so low compared to dominant culture folks? So I think the question we have to wrestle with is what part of our identity are we going to push aside to fit in those spaces? Or sometimes the role of negotiator and access to privilege can lead to healing and good things.

(19:53):

And also there are spaces where we step into where that's not even on the table. It's going to be an option. And so can we step back and not have to be that designated person and say, actually, I can't do any negotiations. I don't have the power to do that. It's kind of a false invitation. It's this false sense of you can kind of belong if you do this, but you can't really belong. I want you to vote for me, but then in 30 days, 60 days, I'm going to deport you at risk to be arrested. So you have to vote against your own best interest in order to be accepted, but after being accepted, you're also rejected. So I think there's a sense for me as I ramble through it, I don't know where that permission comes from to step back, but I think we do need to take a long hard look and step back

Speaker 2 (20:57):

Just listening to you. I have a sense that the invitation to your community is a little different than the invitation that has been extended to my community. And of course the extension of that invitation coming from the power structures of the western world of America, of whiteness. I hear you saying that if I'm mishearing you, let's chat. But what I hear is the sense of this notion that you can negotiate for acceptance, which I think is an invitation that has been extended to a lot of ethnic groups in the United States that do not include black people. Our history in the United States is the notion of one drop of black blood lands you in this category for which there will never be access. And I say that also knowing that part of the excitement of a candidacy of someone like Kamala Harris is the notion that somehow we have negotiated something or the possibility that we actually have negotiated a kind of acceptance that is beyond imagination. And in the days following the election, some of the conversation of literally she did everything that she has, all the degrees, she has the resume, she has this, she has that, and it wasn't enough to negotiate the deal

(22:53):

And the kind of betrayal. And so I started this by saying, oh no, y'all over there in Latinx spaces get to negotiate something we as black people. But I think that there's a true narrative in post civil rights post brown versus board of education that the negotiation that we are in as black people is if we get the degrees and we build the pedigree, we can earn the negotiated seat. And I think other ethnic spaces, and you tell me if this feels true to you, the negotiation has been about bloodline.

Speaker 1 (23:50):

Yeah, absolutely. And adjacent to that negotiated space is the idea that you wouldn't have to anticipate so much that you could walk in and feel safe or that no matter where you think about any of the presidential spaces, that Kamala Harris could walk in and she could be accepted

Speaker 2 (24:15):

And that she would bring all the rest of us with her. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (24:29):

I wanted to believe that this election was based on issues. And I wanted to believe that no matter where you stood on certain things that you could see through that Trump was going to be a deadly disaster for bodies of color. And yet that's not what happened.

Speaker 2 (24:55):

Yeah, I think, right. And my first pushback is like, he's a problem. He's a disaster not just for bodies of color. And I think there was some segment of the country making the argument that he is a detriment to a kind of ideal that affects us all regardless of race or creed or color or gender. And I am still trying to make meaning of what it means that that's not the choice we made as a country. I'm still trying to, in my head, logically balance how you could vote against your own interests. And I was watching a documentary this weekend, the US and the Holocaust, and one of the things that is true in that documentary is the fact that there has always been a strain of American life that voted against its own interest. That notion is not new. And if I try to think about that in psychological terms, I mean, how often have you seen that as a therapist, a client who makes decisions that are clearly against their own interest? And the therapeutic work is to get to a place where that is less and less true,

Speaker 1 (26:38):

Which I mean, I know we'll record a part two, I think of the collective meaning we are making out of this, that the sense that in the voting against our own self-interest, I can speak from my cultural background, you may say goodbye to your grandma or your brother. You may say goodbye to the friend down the street that runs a restaurant. And what does that do to your psyche? It's nothing new. We've been asked to do that for centuries. This is not new. This was introduced when colonial powers first arrived and we're asking for loyalty in exchange for some kind of a false hope of true safety. And yet when we experience this anxiety or this anticipatory intelligence, I think our bodies aren't just speaking from what's happening today, but the centuries of this was never, okay.

Speaker 2 (27:48):

See, again, I'm hit with that sentence reads different to me when I hear you as a Latino woman say, that's not a new negotiation for us. We've been asked to vote against our own interest from colonial days. And what does that cost you? I want to cry for that story of an immigration that sounded like it was voluntary and never actually was. And I say that feeling in my own experience, the trajectory of enslaved Africans were asked to negotiate something very different than that. What is the cost? It'll be a different kind of cost. There is a section of the black community that voted against our own interest in this election, and what does that mean and what's the story that we're telling ourselves around it in order to justify a choice? The consequences of which I think have yet to be made clear for any of us. I know that there's this anticipated, we can say the word mass deportation and think that we can anticipate the cost of that. And just from the few conversations you and I have had over the last week, I don't think any of our anticipatory work will be anywhere close to the actual cop.

Speaker 1 (30:11):

I think you're right. I think we will do our best based on what we've lived and tried to do for one another and for our own families to anticipate what we need, but we won't escape.

Speaker 2 (30:38):

I think the other thing that I think about is the cost is not just to Latinx people. There is a cost to all of us that are in proximity to you that is different and arguably far less. But I think we're missing that too. I think we're underestimating and miscalculating. There's a science fiction book that was written, I read it in college by the author's name is a guy named Derek Bell. He's a lawyer, and he wrote a book called Faces at the Bottom of the Well. And there's a chapter in the book's, a collection of short stories. There's a short story about the day all the Negroes disappeared. And the story is about this alien population from another planet who is disenchanted with the treatment of enslaved Africans. So they come to earth and they take everybody black. And the story is about what is no longer true of the planet because Africans are no longer enslaved. Africans in the US are no longer in it, on it. And all the things that are no longer true of American life, the things that will never become true of American life because of the absence of a people group. And I think that, again, we can say the phrase mass deportation and think we have some sense of what the cost of that might be. And I think we are grossly underestimating and miscalculating all the things that will not be true of American life.

Speaker 1 (32:33):

Yeah, I think I don't have words. I don't have a lot of explanations or what our kids will, what they're learning about life. I know we have to pause. Okay. Okay.

Speaker 2 (33:09):

Part two, to come

Speaker 1 (33:10):

Our cucumber. I'll catch you later. As you can see, we ended this podcast on a difficult note, and it's not a space that Rebecca and I are going to be able to resolve, and we are going to continue talking about it. So tune in to our next episode in part two. And I really think there's a lot of encouragement to be found in setting a frame and setting space for reality and what we are facing in our bodies and understanding ourselves and understanding as collectives, how this might be impacting us differently. Rebecca and I aren't speaking for everybody in our communities. They're not monoliths. We are speaking from our particular locations. Again, thank you for tuning in and I encourage you to download, share, subscribe, and share with others that that might be researching or thinking about this topic. Talk to you later. Bye.

Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.

Matthias Roberts is a queer  psychotherapist (in Washington State) and the author of both "Holy Runaways:

Rediscovering Faith After Being Burned by Religion" and "Beyond Shame: Creating a Healthy Sex Life on Your Own Terms". He is one of my favorite friends I met in graduate school, a human deeply committed to connection and curiosity,  and someone who I deeply admire. With Matthias, I feel a sense of belonging and openness to understanding the world and holding space for that curiosity which is so threatening elsewhere.

Rebecca W. Walston is an African American lawyer, who also holds a MA Counseling, an all around boss babe. Rebecca runs a Law Practice and serves as General Legal Counsel for The Impact Movement, Inc.  She is someone who fiercely advocates for others freedom and healing. She is a dear friend and colleague, who anyone would be lucky to spend a dinner with talking about almost anything.

Trigger Warning: Proceed only if you are comfortable with potentially sensitive topics.

This is not psychological advice, service, or prescriptive treatment for anxiety or depression. The content related to descriptions of depression, anxiety, or despair may be upsetting or triggering, but are clearly not exhaustive. If you should feel symptoms of depression and/or anxiety, please seek professional mental health services, or contact (in Kitsap County) Kitsap Mobile Crisis Team at  1-888-910-0416. The line is staffed by professionals who are trained to determine the level of crisis services needed. Depending on the need, this may include dispatching the KMHS Mobile Crisis Outreach Team for emergency assessment. 

Speaker 1 (00:18):

Welcome to the Rise podcast, conversations on faith, race, justice, gender, and spirituality. Today we're continuing our conversation on election humanity and politics. I have two guests today. I'm very excited about it. Matthias Roberts, who's a queer psychotherapist in Washington State, and the author of both Holy Runaways and Beyond Shame. Actually, he's one of my favorite friends I met in graduate school. I don't know if he knows that he's a human, deeply committed to connection and curiosity and someone I deeply admire with Matthias. I've always felt this sense of belonging and openness to understanding the world and holding space for that actual curiosity, which has seems so threatening elsewhere. So I want to thank Matthias for joining me and taking time out of his morning. And Rebecca Wheeler Walstead holds an MA in counseling an all around boss babe. Rebecca runs a law practice and serves as general legal counsel for the Impact movement, and she is someone who fiercely advocates for others freedom and healing. She's a dear friend, obviously she's a colleague and she's someone that anybody would be lucky to spend a dinner with talking about almost anything. So thank you, Rebecca, for joining me today.

(01:40):

I can say that for myself in my own experience, my anxiety is heightened overall and feelings that I can keep at bay with regular normal coping mechanisms such as exercise. It takes to me a little bit more and I have to offer myself a lot more grace in the process. I encourage you no matter where you are, to engage these topics with grace towards your own self, towards your neighbor, towards your family, and towards whoever's in your proximity. We won't get things done overnight no matter who we are, and we will get them done if we become more aligned and care more for those in our proximity, that means our neighbor. So if you're feeling or experiencing anxiety around the election or family or other triggers, I want you to encourage you to seek out and find someone to speak with. Maybe you need a mental health professional, maybe you need a spiritual advisor. Maybe it's your coach and it's something related to business. Maybe you need to go see your doctor for aches and pains you've been having. I don't know what it might be for you, but don't hesitate to reach out and get the help you need. We're going to jump into the conversation and voices from across the country. We are all different and we're not meant to be the same. I hope you find pieces of you in each of their stories. Hey, Rebecca. Hey, Matthias. Thanks for being with me today.

Speaker 2 (03:06):

Daniel, thanks for having

Speaker 1 (03:07):

Us. I just thought we would talk about this really amazing subject of politics and humanness because we're so good at it in the United States. Yeah, right. Y'all thoughts on that? Even as I say that, just politics and being human, what comes to mind?

Speaker 2 (03:34):

For me, there's almost a dual process happening. I think about my first thought was, well, politics are, but then I also thought about how when we separate institutions out from people, especially in the way that corporations tend to separate out how they become anti-human so quickly, and not that politics is necessarily a corporation, but I think there's a form of it. There's something corporate about it. And so I think about that juxtaposition and maybe the dichotomy there between, yeah, it's human, but I think it's also anti-human in the ways that it has to, I think almost by definition, separate from maybe these places of deep feeling or nuance in order to collapse all of that experience into something that people can rally on.

Speaker 3 (04:51):

I think there's something dehumanizing about our current politics, but I think that that is about power. I think when politics becomes about the consolidation of power or the perpetuation of power or the hanging on to it sort of desperately, then it no longer is about the people that the institutions and the country was built to serve and protect. And so I think there are all these ideals in our politics that on paper and in theory sound amazing, but when people in their humanness or maybe in the worst of our humanness step away from other people and not just people as sort of this collective generalized, but the actual person in front of you, the actual person in front of you and the story that they have and the life that they live, and how decisions and theories and ideals will impact the actual person in front of you. And when politics becomes about collecting power and maintaining that power at all costs, then it's no longer about people. It's no longer about lives. It's no longer about stories, and all those things become expendable in the name of the consolidation and the maintenance of power. And I think that at its heart is a human question. It's a question of selfishness and self-serving and maybe even self idolatry.

Speaker 1 (06:49):

I think that I agree, Matthias, I've been thinking a lot about, because in my family it's been a lot of comments like, well, we shouldn't talk about politics because we're family. I'm like, wait a minute, wait just a minute. Because the very politic that is being said from one angle is hurting the humanity of this other particular family member. How do we make sense of that? How do we say politics isn't a very human, the impact is meant to impact humans. The power is meant to impact humans, so the political sphere has become so toxic to us.

Speaker 3 (07:40):

Yeah, I think that sentence, we shouldn't talk about politics because we're family. It says more about maybe our fragility as a culture in this moment and our inability to have hard conversations without feeling like the difficulty of them fractures, relationships and familial bonds in ways that cannot be repaired or restored in any way. And I think it is also a statement about the toxicity of our politics that we have allowed it to get to a place where it actually threatens those kinds of familial bonds in some sense, you want go back to, you remember that book that was big in the nineties? All I ever learned about life I learned in kindergarten, right? All I ever needed to know, it reminds me of that because raising kids, I would raise my kids to say, there isn't anything on this earth that should fracture your bond as siblings. I raised them to believe that. I insisted that they engage the world from this vantage point that come hell or high water do or die is you and your sister. That's it. And it doesn't matter what happens in this world, there should never be a scenario in which that isn't true. And we have arrived at this place where people honestly believe that your political affiliation somehow threatens that.

(09:19):

That's sad and sad feels like a word that's not heavy enough to articulate. There's something wrong, really wrong if that's where we are,

Speaker 2 (09:35):

I think it speaks perhaps to our inability to do conflict well, and I'm the first, I don't do this all with my family at all. I'm terrible at conflict with my family, at least in the arena of politics. But I think about, I wonder if some of the fracturing that we say, I don't think it's all of it by any means, but is that reality of, because we can't have these conversations in our immediate family, it's getting projected into the wider, I mean, it has to play out somewhat. It is going to, that's the nature of it. So because we can't do it locally, it is having to play out on this grand scale. Rebecca, as you said, sad. I think it's horrifying too.

Speaker 1 (10:44):

It's what?

Speaker 2 (10:45):

Horrifying.

Speaker 1 (10:46):

Yes. It's very dangerous to be honest.

Speaker 2 (10:54):

It's very, yeah, those bonds, we have the familial bonds. Those are protective in some ways when we remove that, we remove those protections.

Speaker 1 (11:11):

I think we've been practicing at a society, and I'm talking particularly about the United States at ways of removing those bonds in multiple spheres of the way we've thought about life, the way we think about another person, the way we judge each other, the way we vote in past elections. I mean, the civil rights movement is pushing against that notion that family means dehumanizing someone else. And so even this idea of, I'm not even sure if I can say it right, but just how we've constructed the idea of family and what do our shared values mean. In some sense, it's been constructed on this false notion that someone is worth more than another person. Now, when that person shows up as fully human, then I think we don't know what to do with it.

Speaker 3 (12:11):

Yeah. I think something you said, Mathias about we don't do conflict well, right? I think rarely is any issue, black and white. Rarely is any issue. So clear cut and so definitive that you can boldly stand on one side or the other and stay there in perpetuity without ever having to wrestle or grapple with some complexity, some nuance. And I think maybe part of what we don't do well is that right? Somehow we've gotten to this space where we have maybe an oversimplified if that, I'm not even sure that's a good word, perspective on a number of issues as if there isn't any complexity and there isn't any nuance and there isn't any reason to pause and wonder if context or timing would change the way we think about something, right? And nor do we think that somehow changing your mind is no longer acceptable.

(13:20):

I think about, I saw a number of interviews with Kamala Harris. People talk to her about, well, why'd you change your mind about this or that? Why'd you change your perspective about this or that? And then part of the conversation was about when did we get to this place where growing and learning and changing your mind is bad for someone who is in the profession of holding public office since when can you not get in public office, learn some things differently, meet some new people, understand the issue better, and go, you know what? I need to change the way I think about this, but we are there. All of a sudden it means you're not fit for office, at least as it has been applied to Kamala Harris in this particular and even before her. The notion of a flip flopper is again to say you can't somehow change your mind.

Speaker 2 (14:21):

So that makes me start to then think about some of the myths, and I mean that deeper theological myth in the sense of not that it is untrue, but more in the sense of how it permeates culture. That's when I say myth and we have this idea or many people have this idea of a God that doesn't change, a God who doesn't change his mind as the ideal of there is right there is wrong, and the ideal is no change. And we have examples and scriptures, at least I believe, of a God who does change his mind, who sees what happens and change is what he does. And I think those can be compatible with maybe some ideas that maybe God doesn't change, but we also have examples of God changing his mind. But I think that has permeated our world of something unchanging is better than someone who or something who does change. And I wonder what that impact has been

Speaker 3 (15:38):

That made me pause. I certainly come out of a faith background of hold to God's unchanging hand. I mean, I can come up off the top of my head with a dozen different examples of the notion of he does not shift, he does not change. And the kind of comfort or solidity that can be found in this notion that we're not subject to the whim of his mood in any given time, but what you said causes me to think about it and to think about what does it mean to say that we live in a world where there is a God who can be persuaded by something in the human context that will cause him to respond or react differently than perhaps his original mindset is. I'm going to walk away from this conversation pondering that for a while. I think,

Speaker 2 (16:30):

Yeah, there are stories of that in scripture.

Speaker 3 (16:36):

The one that comes to my mind is the story of, and I'm not going to get all the names correct, so whoever's listening, forgive me for that. But the story that comes to my mind is the prophet of old who is pleaded with God for more time on earth, for more space to be alive and walk the earth as a human being. And God granted his request. And again, now there's a bit of a paradigm shift for me. What does it mean to say that I live in a world where there's a God who can be persuaded? I think the other thing when you said about a God who changes his mind, what comes up for me is also a God who holds extremely well the nuance and the complexity of our humanness and all that that means. And so often I find it's sort of the pharmaceutical attitude that we can have that things are rigid and there's only one way to see it and one way to do it. And if you ever watch Jesus's engagement with the Pharisees, it's always actually the problem is more complex than that. Actually the question you're asking is more than that. And so what matters less is the rule. What matters more is the impact of that rule. And if we need to change the rule in order for the appropriate impact, then let's do that.

Speaker 1 (18:08):

It's kind of gets back to something I've been learning in consultation, talking about this idea. I think we're talking about very young spaces collectively for our society. If I was to put it in that frame, the idea of as a child, a very young kid, even into your teenagers, you need to know something solid. You need to know that's not changing. That's the rule. That's what I got to do. And it's the parent's responsibility to make meaning and metabolize nuance for you and help you process through that. But one of our first developmental things is to split. This is good, this is bad, this person is safe, this person. That's a developmental process. But in somewhere we got stuck,

Speaker 3 (18:54):

It brings to my mind, you've heard me reference raising kids. And so I raised my kids to say this idea that you have to be respectful and thoughtful in your choices. And I always told my kid that so long as you are respectful and thoughtful in your choices, your voices will always be heard and welcomed kind of in our home. And so my daughter approached me, she's making an argument about something that I absolutely did not agree with her final conclusion. I was like, there's no version of anybody's universe where you're doing that, right? And she says to me, but you said if I was thoughtful and I was respectful that I could assert my position and I have been respectful in my tone and I've been thoughtful in my position. And she was absolutely right. Both had been true, and I found myself having to say, okay, now I sort of backed myself into a corner.

(19:58):

She followed me into it and the conversation ended up being about, Hey, that's true. Those are the parameters, but you're older now and the things that you're making decisions about have more impact and they're more nuanced and complex than that. So we need to add a couple more things to your rubric, and it's a hard conversation to have, but it makes me think about that developmental piece that you're saying, Danielle, that when we're younger, there's certain sort of bright line rules and the older you get and the more complex life gets, the more you need to be able to actually blur those lines a little bit and fudge them a little bit and sometimes color outside of the lines because it is the right thing to do.

Speaker 2 (20:48):

I think that movement from that really kind of rigid split into Rebecca what you're talking about, it requires that grappling with grief and loss, it requires that sense of even if I followed the rules, I didn't get what I wanted. And that is we have options there. We can rage against it and go back into the split, you are bad. I'm good, or actually grapple with that. I did everything I was supposed to and it still didn't work out in that words, it doesn't feel good and grieve and feel the pain of that and actually work with those parts of ourselves. And there is so much that our nation has not grieved, not repented from, and we are in the consequences of that.

Speaker 1 (21:53):

I was just thinking that Mathias, it's like we're asking one another to make meaning, but we're at a very base level of meaning making. We're trying to first discern, discern what is reality, and a lot of times we don't share reality, but when you're a baby, the reality is your caregiver hopefully, or even the absence of you become accustomed to that. And so I think we've become accustomed to this sense of almost this indoctrination of a certain type of religion, which I would call white evangelical Christianity, where they're telling you, I can make sense of all of this from the perspective of race. I can do that for you. Whether they talk about it explicitly or not, they're like, I can tell you what's good and bad from this perspective, but then if you add in how do you make sense of all the Christians vote for Trump and 84% of African-Americans are going to vote for Kamala Harris. I grew up thinking, are those people not Christians? I didn't know as a kid, I was raised with my father. I didn't understand, didn't make sense to me, but I thought, how could so many people as a child, I actually had this thought, how could so many people not know Jesus, but go to church and how could all these people know Jesus and say they're going to heaven? It never made sense to me.

Speaker 3 (23:19):

I mean, what you're saying, Danielle, is probably why there is a very clear historical and present day distinction between white evangelism and the black church. That's why those two things exist in different spaces because even from the very beginning, white evangelicalism or what became white evangelicalism advocated for slavery, and Frederick Douglass learned how to read by reading the scripture at risk to his own life and to the white slave owner who taught him how to read. And once he learned to read and absorbed the scriptures for himself, his comment is there is no greater dichotomy than the Christianity of this world and the Christianity of scripture. And so your sense that it doesn't make any sense is as old as the first enslaved African who knew how to understand the God of the Bible for him or herself and started to say out loud, we got problems, Houston.

Speaker 1 (24:39):

Yeah, I remember that as a young child asking that question because it just never made sense to me. And obviously I understand now, but as a kid you grow up with a certain particular family, a Mexican mom, a white father. I didn't know how to make sense of that.

Speaker 3 (25:04):

I mean, you say, oh, even now I understand and I want to go. You do. I don't explain that to me. I mean, there's a certain sense in which I think we're all in many ways, and I say all the country as a whole church, the American church as a whole trying to make sense of what is that, what was that and what do we do now that the modern sort of white evangelical movement is essentially the Christianity of our entire generation. And so now that that's being called into question in a way that suggests that perhaps it is white and it's religious, but it might not in fact be the Christianity of the Bible. Now what do we do? And I've spent some time in recent years with you, Danielle, in some Native American spaces in the presence of theologians who reckoned with things of God from a Native American perspective.

(26:09):

And if nothing else, I have learned there's a whole bunch. I don't know about what it means to walk with the God of the Bible and that my native brothers and sisters know some things I don't know, and I am kind of mad about it. I'm kind of angry actually about what it is they know that was kept from me that I was taught to dismiss because the author of those ideas didn't look like the white Jesus whose picture was in my Bible or on the vacation Bible school curriculum or whatever. I'm sort of angry at the wisdom they hold for what it means to be a follower of what I think in many native spaces they would refer to as creator, and that was withheld from me. That would've changed the way, enhanced the way I understand this place of faith. And something that white evangel and evangelicalism expressly said was heresy was of the devil was to be ignored or dismissed or dismantled or buried.

Speaker 1 (27:31):

I mean, you have Tucker Carlson referring to Trump as daddy in a recent speech. So you then have this figure that can say, Hey, little kids, don't worry. Your worldview is okay. It's still right and let me make sense of it. I can make sense of it for you with X, Y, Z policies with racist rhetoric and banter. I can do anything I want. I can show up in Madison Square Garden and replicate this horrific political rally and I can do it and everybody will be okay with it, even if they're not okay, they're not going to stop me. So we still have a meaning maker out there. I mean, he is not making my meaning, but he's making meaning. For a lot of folks.

Speaker 3 (28:29):

It is even worse than that. There's a couple of documentaries that are out now. One's called Bad Faith, the other one's called God and Country, and in one of them, I think it was Bad Faith, and they're talking about the rise of Christian nationalism. For me, as a person of faith, one of my biggest questions has always been, there's nothing about this man's rhetoric that remotely reflects anything I ever learned in every Sunday school class and every vacation Bible school, in every Bible study and every church service I've ever been to. He is boldly antithetical to all of it.

(29:06):

And he says that out loud, right back to his comments about, no, I've never asked God for forgiveness because I've never done anything that warranted forgiveness that is antithetical to the heart of evangelical Christianity that asserts that the only way to God and to heaven in the afterlife is through the person of Jesus Christ. And so every person has to admit their own sin and then accept Christ as the atonement for that sin. And he bluntly says, I don't do that. Right. So my question has always been, I don't get it right. Two plus two is now four in your world. So how are 80% of evangelicals or higher voting for this man? And in that movie, bad faith, they talk about, they make reference to the tradition of Old Testament scripture of a king who is not a follower of God, who God sort of uses anyway towards the bent of his own will.

(30:18):

And there's probably a number of references in Old Testament scripture if I was an Old Testament theologian, some of the people who have invested in me, I could give you names and places and dates. I can't do that. But there is a tradition of that sort of space being held and the notion what's being taught in some of these churches on Sundays and on Wednesday night Bible study is that's who he is. That's who Trump is in a religious framework. And so he gets a pass and permission to be as outlandish and as provocative and as mean spirited and as dare I say, evil or bad as he wants to be. And there is no accountability for him in this life, or the next one, which I don't even know what to say to that, except it's the genius move to gaslight an entire generation of Christians that will probably take hold and be with us for far longer than Trump is on the political landscape.

Speaker 2 (31:29):

I am not fully convinced it's gaslighting. On one hand it is. They're saying one thing, doing another. It absolutely is by definition. And I think growing up in white evangelicalism, there is, at least for the men, I think an implicit belief, I don't even think it's explicit. It's becoming explicit that they get that past too. It functions on those passes, those senses of we don't have to hold up to accountability. And I think we see that in all the sexual abuse scandals. We see that in the narcissism of so many white evangelical pastors. There is this sense of, as long as we're in this system, there isn't accountability. And so you can say one thing and do another, and it doesn't matter. You have God's authority over you and therefore it's okay. And so I think there's something, I'm right there with you, it doesn't make any sense, but I think it's also quite consistent with the way that authority has been structured within those

Speaker 1 (33:14):

Spaces that you said that I felt like, I don't know if you ever get your heartbeat right in your neck, but I had it right there. Oh, yeah. I think that feels true. Yeah, it's gaslighting, but also it's meant to be that way.

Speaker 3 (33:39):

Do you think that that's new math or is that at the inception? What do you attribute the origin of that? And I don't disagree with you, I'm just sitting here like, damn, okay, so where does that come from and how long has it been there?

Speaker 2 (34:04):

I don't know. I have guesses. I think, how do you enslave an entire people without something like that and then found literal denominations that are structured on these power and authority? It goes back to what you were saying at the beginning, Rebecca, it's about power and accountability supports power.

Speaker 3 (34:50):

Yeah. Have you read The Color of Compromise?

Speaker 2 (34:59):

There's a documentary by that same name, right? The film

Speaker 3 (35:02):

There might be

Speaker 2 (35:05):

See the film. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (35:07):

So he makes a comment in the book. He is writing this chapter about sort of the origins of the country and the country is as the colonies are being formed before it is a country, the colonists are in this sort of public debate about slavery and Christianity. And at least in tissie's research, there's sort of this group of colonists who come to the United States or what will become the US for the sake of proselytizing, evangelizing who they term savage, native and then enslaved Africans. And they're having this public conversation about does the conversion of a native or an African to Christianity remove them from slavery, essentially? Can you theologically own someone who's a profess child of God?

(36:32):

And Tse says that the origin of that debate has to do with an old English law that said that you can't enslave someone who is of the faith. And I remember reading that and thinking to myself, there's something wrong with the logic that you think you have the right to own any human being regardless of their faith belief system or not. There's something wrong with the premise in general that you believe as another human being, you have the right to own or exercise dominion over another human soul. So those are the things that go across my mind as I listen to you talk and propose the notion that this issue has been there, this flaw in the thinking has been there from the beginning.

Speaker 1 (37:40):

I was just thinking, I am reading this book by Paola Ramos about defectors and how Latinos in the US have moved to the far right, and she makes a case that the faith of the Spaniards told them that in order to achieve superiority, they should basically make babies with the indigenous peoples of the Americas. And they went about and did that. And then I know we always think popular literature, the United States, oh, India has this caste system. That's what people say, but really Latin America has a really complex caste system too. And to which after they brought over, and Rebecca and I know Matthias, you guys know this, but after they brought over stole African human bodies, a majority of them came Latin America, what we know as Latin America, they didn't come here to the United States to the continental us. And so then you have this alliance then between, and I'll bring it back to politics between these mixed Spaniards with indigenous folks also in enslaving Africans.

(38:56):

So then you get to our political commentary and you're recruiting Latinos then to join the Evangelical white church movement. And they've often been demonized and excluded in spaces because of citizenship, which adds its own complexity where African-Americans, now they have citizenship right now on the current day, but then you have these Latinos that it can be born or they're brought over on daca. So then you have this complexity where not only is there this historical century hating of African-Americans and black folks in Latino culture, but you also have this sense of that to get ahead, you have to align with white folks to come against African-Americans. You have all of that in the mix, and also then you also have to deny yourself and the fact that you have African heritage and indigenous heritage, so it's this huge mind fuck, right? How do you make sense of that colonial jargon in the political landscape? And then how does a Latino think, how do they actually encounter the nuance of their humanity and all of that, but complexly set up by the Spanish who said, we're going to enslave this X people group. In the meantime, we'll just mix our mix with this certain race, but the white people will be more dominant. And so you see that all comes into the United States politic and who gets to be human and who gets not to be human.

Speaker 3 (40:44):

I mean, in some ways, Daniel, you're pointing out that, and I think this goes back to math's point of several minutes ago, none of this is new under the sun. All of this is just current day manifestations or reenactments of a racialized dynamic that's been in play since forever, since even before maybe even the American colonies, right? Because what happened in terms of the transatlantic slave trade in Latin America predates some of that.

Speaker 2 (41:18):

Yeah. I mean, I think about England colonizing a huge portion of the world under the name of their faith that requires quite a distancing from accountability in humanity. Then you get an extreme fringe of those folks starting their own colonies.

Speaker 3 (41:47):

I mean, it does make me think, and my Pentecostalism is about the show, but it does make me think that there's something about this whole dynamic that's starting to feel really ancient and very old patterns that have been in place, and to me suggests from a spiritual standpoint, an enemy that is organized and intentional, and I have begun to wonder less than a week out from the election, what's the game plan if the election doesn't go the way I hope it does? What happens if America decides to give into its lesser urges as it has done in the past, and choose a path that is contrary and antithetical to its ideals what we're going to do? I ask that not even from a practical standpoint as much as spiritually speaking, how am I going to breathe and how am I going to make meaning of what you do with a world where that's the reality? We were talking before we got on air about the rally in Times Square and we can rail against it all we want, but there was hundreds of thousands of people there saying, yeah, let's do that.

Speaker 4 (43:40):

That scares me. And

Speaker 2 (43:52):

It doesn't go away. Even if Harris wins, I think your question of what do we do if Trump wins? It's a sobering question. It's a terrifying question, but I think it's also a very similar question of even if she wins, what do we do? What do we do? These people don't magically disappear.

Speaker 1 (44:30):

We're going to have to do no matter what. I just feel like there has to be some sort of, like you said, Mathias, just processing of the grief of our past because it's chasing us. You can hear it in each of our stories. It is just chasing us what we've been a part of, what we've been asked to give up. And I think America, well, the United States, not America, but the United States is terrified of what it would mean if it had to face that kind of grief.

Speaker 3 (45:23):

I don't know about that, Danielle, because for there to be terror would mean that you have had some conscious admission that something is gravely wrong. And I'm not even sure if we're there yet. I think America as a whole has a whole lot of defense mechanisms and coping mechanisms in place, so they never even have to get that far. And I don't know what you call that, what comes before the terror, right? Because terror would mean some part of you has admitted something, and I just don't know if we're there. And that's just me meandering through a thought process. But

Speaker 1 (46:19):

Oh, that's scary too, right? I think you're probably right. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think we're going to bump up against our time. I know, Mathias, you have something coming up too, but any final thoughts? I don't expect us to solve anything or wrap it up, but

Speaker 2 (46:47):

I'm just noting how I'm feeling and there's something both sobering and grounding about this conversation. I don't think we've covered really any kind of necessarily new territory, but to continue to speak these things, it's so brain, but it's also like, okay, we can ground ourselves in these things though. These things are true and it's terrible, but when we ground ourselves, we have ground just, and that feels different from some of the up in the air anxiety I was feeling before coming to this coverage, just the general anxiety of the election that is so pervasive. So that's a shift.

Speaker 3 (47:53):

I think I found myself looking back a lot in recent days back to the history of the story of African hyphen Americans in the United States, back to some fundamental things that I learned about my faith early on. And I have a sense of needing to return to those things as part of grounding that regardless of what happens in the next week or the next several months or even the next six months, we have been here before as a country, as a people, and we have survived it, and we will do so again. If I think about the black national anthem, God of our weary years, God of our silent tears, and I have found myself needing to return to those traditions and those truths, and I think I'll stay there for as long as my mind and my body and my emotions will allow me to as a way of breathing through the next several days. I mean, talk to me on November 6th. That might be in a very different place, or January 6th or January 20th, but for today, I find myself looking back, I have some curiosity for each of you. What are those traditions for you, in your own spaces, in your family, in your culture, in your people? What are the things that have grounded you in the past, and can they ground you again going forward?

Speaker 2 (49:43):

I'm sitting here finding myself wanting to come up with some beautiful answer. And the reality is I don't know that I have a beautiful answer. It's a difficult task.

Speaker 1 (50:00):

Yeah. I mean, no, we're wrapping up. I can't give you anything clever except I think what comes to mind is I often just tell myself just the next hour, the next day, sometimes I don't even think about tomorrow. I tell myself, don't rush too much. You don't know what's in tomorrow. Today's going to be okay. So I kind of coach myself up like stay in the moment.

Speaker 3 (50:38):

And in all fairness, Danielle, your people, if you will, are facing a very different kind of threat under a Trump presidency than mine are, and that is, I'm firmly of the belief if he's going to come for one of us, eventually he will come for all of us. But I'm also very aware that the most pressing existential threat is coming against people of Latinx descent people who very well may be American citizens, are facing the potential reality that won't matter. And so your sense of blackness gay through the next hour, I'm good. I have a lot of respect for what these days are requiring of you. Thank you.

Speaker 1 (51:43):

Thanks for hopping on here with me, guys.

Speaker 2 (51:47):

Thank you.

Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.

Trigger Warning: Proceed only if you are comfortable with potentially sensitive topics.

This is not psychological advice, service, or prescriptive treatment for anxiety or depression. The content related to descriptions of depression, anxiety, or despair may be upsetting or triggering, but are clearly not exhaustive. If you should feel symptoms of depression and/or anxiety, please seek professional mental health services, or contact (in Kitsap County) Kitsap Mobile Crisis Team at  1-888-910-0416. The line is staffed by professionals who are trained to determine the level of crisis services needed. Depending on the need, this may include dispatching the KMHS Mobile Crisis Outreach Team for emergency assessment. 

Danielle  (00:26):

Welcome to the Rise podcast, conversations on faith, race, justice, gender, and spirituality. This is a part two of our season five opener, which was review and recap of the past year, and also engaging some questions around humanity, the election, and how do we see our neighbor? We are going to be hearing from a couple of organizers who have been in my county, Kitsap County for more than a decade. You're going to hear some of their experiences, some of what they've gone through, as well as a few other folks who are giving their response to the questions we posed last week. I've been doing a lot of listening. This isn't an endorsement for any candidate. This isn't a psychological advice, and this isn't a prescription for how you should vote. Voting is a right. It's something we can participate in. It's a way to participate in our system.  

A lot of folks are swinging wildly between two pendulums. There's the thought of my vote doesn't matter and I'm not going to vote, or I'm going to vote for X person as a protest vote. These are all of your rights. You have the right to do. So. I've been thinking a lot about change and what does change mean? How do we want to see change come about, and what does long-term change really look like? I can't speak from an electoral politics standpoint because I'm not an elected official and I don't plan to be anytime soon. I can speak as a person, a mother, a wife, a partner, a colleague, a friend, and a community member. And what I can say is people powered movements are what I have seen from the ground up, bring change in communities. This isn't unlike what happens in our bodies from a psychological experience in my own body. Change doesn't come from merely thinking about it. It comes from the ground up in my body. It comes from addressing the feelings, paying attention to my body, and becoming a more integrated person. I would challenge all of us to look around and what are the people powered movements for social change that we desire, and what are the ways our body is talking to us and how if we listen, will it inform us where we stand on many of these different issues?  

This brings me to another sensitive topic. The topic of how we are feeling, how we are doing in the sociopolitical climate. We're living in these United States. I can say that for myself in my own experience, my anxiety is heightened overall and feelings that I can keep at bay with regular normal coping mechanisms such as exercise. It takes me a little bit more and I have to offer myself a lot more grace in the process. I encourage you no matter where you are, to engage these topics with grace towards your own self, towards your neighbor, towards your family, and towards whoever's in your proximity. We won't get things done overnight. That's not how change works. Change is a process. It is for us as individuals, and it is for us as a collective society. So hang in there. If you need help, get the help you need.  

Maybe it's a mental health counselor, maybe it's a spiritual advisor. Maybe it's your pastor, maybe it's your friend. Maybe it's someone in your community that you look up to, like a mentor, or maybe you just need to sit down with your friends and have a good old fashioned dinner and drinks and put your phones away. Whatever the help you need is, it's important that you seek out that help and that support. The goal isn't to be perfect. It isn't to be fixed. The goal is to be in our process and getting what we need so each day we can show up for ourselves and those in our community. We're going to jump into the conversation and voices from across the country. We are all different and we're not meant to be the same. I hope you find pieces of you in each of their stories.  

Speaker 2 (04:37):

Hi, this is Raquel Jarek and I'm coming to you from Bloomington, Minnesota, which is a suburb in the Minneapolis area. I teach astronomy for work to college students in downtown Minneapolis and am an aerospace engineer and was raised in a very Christian home. And I'm still a practicing Christian in many ways, and I make space for people with different political views in all kinds of moments in my life. I do it at my work with students because I have a variety of people in my classes. I'm actually challenging them to vote and to even investigate the two major political candidates for president on what they view of science and space and how they would support NASA or space exploration. And I get to know my students pretty well in person, especially not as much with my online students, but I want to make space and have a comfortable room where people can share a little bit of how they feel, but also not be offensive to people with a variety of opinions in the room.  

Speaker 2 (05:44):

And then there's a variety of opinions in my family on my side of the family and my in-laws and which candidates they support and which parties they affiliate with. I want to be a person who is about supporting different opinions and being able to be loving and welcoming to anyone in any opinion. And sometimes that can be difficult when people have conflicting views in the room. I think you might need to keep the conversation more surface level and fun and in smaller conversations maybe you can dive into what they think more. But that can be really challenging to go deep with people who are very opposite opinions. At the same time, I like to have challenging conversations about politics and religion, and I think being open to those conversations whenever those topics come up is good. And then also just remember to be kind. And I think that's definitely easier to do in person than online or in a social media space, but that face-to-face contact does bring out more humanity and more kindness in people. So I hope that helps and that people can make more time and space to treat others kindly and hear opinions. Thanks.  

Danielle (07:04):

What were you going to say about the election?  

Sarah  (07:08):

Oh, I'm just feeling stressed about how close this election is. And it's just sort of extraordinary to me that given the many, many flaws in the Trump offering that people would still vote for him, that he's clearly mentally impaired and authoritarian, happy with dictators, mean-spirited and more of a mafia boss than a presidential candidate. And it's just extraordinary to me that, and I've always known people like that existed. It's just extraordinary to me that so many people would be planning to vote for him. So I am feeling a little stressed this morning,  

Speaker 1 (07:55):

Pam, I saw you nod your head.  

Speaker 4 (07:58):

Oh, I agree with everything that Sarah said. I have the same I deep, deep apprehensions and anxiety, and I think we're living in a landscape of anxiety just on the edge of a nation that at least half of it wants to go over that edge and pull the other half down with them. And it's really frightening. It's real. And I think I'm also frightened by people who are putting their heads in the sand. That's their response either out of just inconvenience or their terror response. So we're in a situation,  

Speaker 1 (09:04):

I agree. I feel that. I feel it come out in so many different ways. So for instance, as a licensed mental health therapist, something gets said like it was this last week where the former president is at a rally comments on anatomy. It gets blasted across the airwaves. And then what I notice that happens across my workspace is that people are triggered in their family relationships. They're triggered in with community. They're on heightened alert with a neighbor. I noticed this is last week we had two different really random requests. One was to adjust our fence because of the view. And if you know my yard, I live way out in the country, no one's looking. The second thing that happened to us was like, your car is parked at an odd angle sort of thing. So can we switch it around? I wasn't home. I got the message. And immediately when the message popped up, I felt so much anxiety and I was trying to talk myself off the ledge. I'm like, you can move this car, Danielle, when you go home, you can move this. This is fixable. You can come back from this. But the way I understand it is there's all my cup of navigating anxiety and uncertainties already up to here. So if my car's crooked somewhere, I'm freaking out.  

Speaker 4 (10:44):

I think that's happening all over the place. I mean, we saw an example yesterday afternoon with that involved pizza and chicken and people being much deeper issues and wounds being triggered by that, and we just have to take care of each other. I think we really, my priority is number one for the foreseeable future is public safety and how do we take care of each other when a lot of us can't call the people in the system that are supposed to give us support when they're not there, or they are part of what is creating problems and cruelty and insensitivity. So I mean, that's the only thing that's on my mind right now is public safety.  

Speaker 1 (12:16):

Sarah, thank you, Pam. Sarah, what comes to mind? We're kind of discussing the nature of political dialogue in our current climate. What do you see at stake if we do not vote?  

Speaker 3 (12:31):

Yeah, so that's what I've been thinking a lot about because I know there's a lot of people feeling that as a principled matter, they don't want to participate in voting, especially when the Biden administration has not been taking the ethical stand. We would like them to take on Gaza, for example. That's kind of a particularly heightened one, and it's really hard to feel like by voting somehow you're participating, you're condoning genocide. So I really get that and struggle with that myself. And here's where I come down is that I don't feel like any presidential candidate since I've started voting, which was a very long time ago, that any presidential candidate, except for when McGovern was voting, was running to get us out of Vietnam War, that there's been a presidential candidate that I was voting for with enthusiasm, we vote strategically. And that's one of the things the working family party is so good at.  

Speaker 3 (13:35):

They say we're voting strategically. We're voting to build power so that we as a movement can get things done. That doesn't mean the person who's running for president or any other office is our leader. We're not getting behind them as like, okay, all our loyalty is to this individual. We're voting strategically because this person in office is more likely to, number one, give us the space to build a social movement that can actually build power. And number two, to be swayed by the social movement to care when people show up and protest and people gone strike. And when people's movements do what they do so well, they care enough to then be willing to change policies. And so that's the way I feel about it. I don't feel like we have to believe that Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz are the people that we believe are the most, are everything we would hope for.  

Speaker 3 (14:33):

We just have to say, will this person allow social movements that care about poor people, that care about immigrants, they care about the environment, will they allow those social movements to progress? And we desperately need that progress. And on the other hand, if we end up with somebody like Trump, I mean, I think part of the appeal of Trump in the beginning, I mean when he ran the first time around, I think the appeal for a lot of people was they were just so angry at the system as it is that voting for Trump was throwing a bomb into the middle of government and seeing what landed because they didn't want to continue the status quo. And that felt more satisfying. Well, we kind of know what that looked like. We know who got hurt there. And we know also that this time around he has less to lose.  

Speaker 3 (15:25):

He doesn't have another term to run for, so he doesn't have to placate anybody. There is no group of people that he has to be concerned about except for the people who give him money and give him power. And so that's what the entire government will be oriented around is giving Donald Trump lots of flattery, lots of power and lots of money. And we know what that looks like in Russia because that's kind of what happened when the Berlin wall fell, is that they kind of sold off the whole government to a bunch of rich people, and it became just thoroughly corrupt. It's not like we don't have corruption now we do, but just wait until the whole government is privatized and Elon Musk owns this chunk and Peter tha owns this chunk, and it's like the rest of you, we don't care because we've got AI to do your job. Anyway,  

Speaker 1 (16:24):

Pam, thoughts or response?  

Speaker 4 (16:28):

Yeah, no, I think all of that is right on. We sort of can oscillate between the most local level, the national level, and global politics. So we're part of a very extraordinary zeitgeist of authoritarianism popping up in multiple countries. And I heard a podcast a week or so ago talking about authoritarianism in other countries, and they pointed out, and especially in Europe, that there very, very forceful, very strong, very loud, very visible, but they are not the majority in those countries. And I think because we see and hear more about authoritarianism on a daily basis and the ratcheting up of the horrible violent rhetoric that we can easily feel like we are the minority. And I don't know that we're a big majority. And I think that there's a lot of qualifications to what constitutes authoritarianism because it is not that it's not here already. When we talk about voting for democracy, this is about losing our democracy. Well, that's a very relative term. I mean, the country was not founded democratically, this country was taken. I think that's why we have such a hard time dealing with Palestine. If we have to acknowledge colonization and genocide and all of the injustices there, we might have to then look at our own situation and history. So I mean, again, it just travels back and forth between the different levels. And here in sbo, hobo is proud of its colonization and it's just terrified of losing a grip. So I think we are in an identity crisis. You can't imagine.  

Speaker 3 (19:28):

Yeah, I think that's right. And I think a lot of that identity, I think a lot of it is where racism really flowers is people are afraid that they lose their privilege and entitlement of being white, and then they're willing to listen to and be convinced by really horrible racist ideas. And I think part of that is also this crisis of a sense of belonging that people have been, the social institutions that used to keep us connected have withered away in so many different ways. And then during Covid, we were so isolated, and then people just got this, it's a psychological trauma of a kind to be that isolated. And so without a sense of belonging, instead of turning to one another and saying, let's figure out how we rebuild our community in ways that are real and authentic and empowering, people are turning against each other because that's sort of the reptilian brain taking over and saying fight or flight, and I'm going to fight these other, and that's going to give me a sense of belonging because then I'll be part of this little group that all is fighting against the other. So I do feel like it's an incredibly dangerous time. And I also feel like at a local level, there are solutions that are about building that sense of belonging that are within our reach.  

Speaker 1 (21:12):

Yeah, one thing I think from a psychological perspective is often we're like toddlers or babies. We do this process of, we do split a split, what's good, what's bad? And we're dependent on a caregiver to make meaning of the world for us so we can understand those splits and we can become hopefully an integrated adult that's able to manage the good and the bad feelings. And I think an more general term, which it's going to shortcut some understanding here, it's far more nuanced than what I'm saying, but we have a collective split. And in that collective split, for instance, when a toddler can't get their bad feelings out, if you've ever seen a toddler rage, they rage about a candy wrapper, they rage about, I can't get it. X. And what does that toddler need? Yes, they need the physical containment, the love and the care and support. They need boundaries.  

Speaker 1 (22:20):

Then they need a parent to talk to them, even if they can't understand it either through touch or interaction or play or verbally to make sense of why they had those big feelings to normalize the big feelings. So the toddler can say, oh, I'm not weird because I had these big feelings and here's where I can put them. Here's how I can process them. And in a sense, Trump I think has capitalized on the splitting of our collective conscious. And he said, you have bad feelings and let's put 'em over here. Let's find someone to blame. So this becomes, let's externalize our bad feelings about maybe what we're coming to realize. It gets centered around a critical race theory or it gets centered around Haitian immigrants. Let's put all of our bad feelings, the things we haven't been taught to metabolize as a society and let's throw 'em over here into these people.  

Speaker 1 (23:19):

And because there's a lot of folks that are listening to this rhetoric, it feels good not to have to deal with our own bad feelings about ourselves. I'm just going to be honest. When I feel shame about myself, I feel horrible. I do not like that. And sometimes I deal with it well, and sometimes I don't. But I depend on other figures in my life to bring that shame to them and say like, oh, what do I do about this? I feel bad. And how do I make amends? Or maybe I can't make amends. And if you can't make amends, you also have to deal with that. So I think these authoritarians capitalize on the psychological collective consciousness of a society that doesn't often know what to do with the bad feelings. Think about Germany, think about Israel, think about, I'm trying to think about what we've done in Mexico and South America with corporations, and now all of a sudden people migrating north.  

Speaker 1 (24:24):

Now they're bad. So what do we do with that construction of consciousness? And I agree, Sarah, really the only way to take a piece of that elephant is to start with your friend or your neighbor and to vote for people that seem to have more space for us to organize or to continue to make meaning with our neighbor that may be very aggressive and hostile to us. I mean, the mistake is on the other side, if I vote for this radical person, they're going to eliminate that bad neighbor somehow because they're not actually trying to convert the person they think is bad. They're trying to get rid of them, expel them permanently. And what I think I'm looking for is something, what SMA talks about, resum is where do we, and I think what you guys are saying is where's that space where we may know we don't like someone, but where there's actually space to figure it out. And with an authoritarian, there's never going to be that space. They're dependent on the hate.  

Speaker 4 (25:32):

That's right. Go ahead, Pam. And then people want to think that if Trump just doesn't get elected, we'll be okay. We will have dodged the literal bullet in many cases. But that's not true because like you're saying, Danielle, it's the divestment of our own intolerable parts. For whatever reason, they are intolerable to us onto the others, and our system is constructed such that we have to have others. Capitalism has to have others, we have to have racism. That's what makes it work so well for the people that it works well for. I think we need a national intervention, and I think that's what we're going toward in a dark sense.  

Speaker 4 (26:49):

But I would hope that we could start to get ourselves moving toward a national intervention and within a more positive framework. And how do we do that? How do we do that? You're talking about the hyper-local level and with neighbors and family. And at this point, I mean, some of our neighbors want to kill us, and that's not being hyperbolic. And we know that those sentiments are out there, but the sort of signs are being flashed everywhere to intimidate others rather than to put down those weapons, whatever form they take and sit down together to find some commonalities to just bring the temperature down. Right now, so many other people have been very alienated from numerous family members over these issues and can't not bring the issue of guns into this conversation because the weaponization of our society is a huge factor. I think it's a huge factor in why many politicians, political leaders don't step up more. I think it's why they don't confront the atrocities that are happening in front of us, whether it's in other countries or it's in our own backyard. I think the arming of America has really deformed our national character, and I think that's a large part of this identity crisis.  

Speaker 3 (29:11):

So yeah, I think what you said earlier about this being that the authoritarian, the group that really approves of that is a minority. And even when Trump won in 2016, he won by a minority of the popular vote. And we know the electoral college system is to blame there, but we are pretty clear that he doesn't have a majority and he still may win, but he doesn't have a majority. So I think it's really important to remember that there are the violent folks who are really in favor and really relish the idea of violence, but they are a relatively small minority way more than I would've hoped, but still. So then I think a lot of our challenge is how do we work with the people that are still in the middle? And I don't mean that they don't have opinions, it's that they are struggling with the nuances.  

Speaker 3 (30:08):

And I think there are a lot of those people, even though they're kind of hidden from the media, but they're struggling with the nuances, they're not sure who to vote for or whether to vote. And one of the things I keep seeing is Kamala Harris and other people asking for money, which I don't understand, they raise so much money already. And what I wish Kamala Harris would ask for is, I wish you would ask us for our vote, and I wish you would ask us to talk to somebody in our family or in our friendship circle who is struggling with knowing whether to vote or not or who to vote for and ask them for their vote. And I'm not talking about uncle, so-and-so who's clearly going to vote for Trump? What I'm talking about is the person who says, well, my vote doesn't matter. Or the person who says, I can't bring myself to vote for a candidate who hasn't stood up to what's going on in Gaza. And those are things that I sympathize with. I think there are people who have intelligence and real concern who are expressing those things. One of the things I just heard about is I don't, if you remember a while, a few elections back, there was a swap the vote thing going on where you could talk to somebody in a swing state  

Speaker 3 (31:35):

And say, Hey, I'll vote for a third party candidate, Jill Stein or Cornell West if you'll vote, given that you're in the swing state and your vote's going to really make a difference if you'll vote for Kamala Harris. So I'm getting ready to do that. I'm going to see if I can find one of my friends at Michigan who is struggling with that question around Gaza because I struggle with it too. And I think that Kamala Harris has shown she actually cares, even though we're not getting the kind of position we would like, I think she actually does care about human beings. I don't see any evidence of that from Trump. So I think we're better off if she wins in Gaza, we're better off with Gaza, and then we can continue our organizing work. So much of our work is really not about the elections.  

Speaker 3 (32:27):

It's about building the power of ordinary people through social movements. And that's what we need to be about. And that's also, I think the part besides the crisis of the other part of the crisis we're in is this crisis of inequality and hopelessness in a sense that no matter what I do, if I'm a young person, I may never be able to buy a house, or I may never be able to have children because I can't afford daycare. I mean, the death that people and people in the media, often the Democratic party often describe this as inflation and say, well, inflation is so much better, and therefore, why aren't you guys happy? It's like, well, I still can't afford a place to live. Why should I be happy? They're kind of not getting that. So the whole way our economy is functioning to pour huge amounts of money into the military industrial complex and into a whole new generation of nuclear weapons, and to allow the wealth to trickle up, not just trickle, but flow up to the top tiniest percentage and the rest of people to be struggling.  

Speaker 3 (33:36):

That whole way of organizing the economy I think is really important to remember how popular Bernie Sanders was when he was willing to call that out. And I think the Democratic Party was not having it. They kept him from actually winning the nomination, but he won enormous amounts of support. And some of those people were people that then turned around and voted for Trump. They wanted an outsider who was going to shake things up. I think we have to be ready to shake things up in terms of the economy in a way that's inclusive, that says we can have an economy that includes everyone, where everybody has an opportunity and not, we could have a better economy by deporting massive numbers of people. I think when you can have a political message, that's also an inclusive message and also a message of belonging, I think that's where we have an opportunity to actually combat this authoritarian bent.  

Speaker 4 (34:36):

I would add that we need more than messaging. We need action because the Democratic Party has been very good at messaging, inclusivity, the big tent, economic equity, healthcare. But then we look at what happens. And Sarah, you and I have been in this for decades, and we make just enough progress to keep the populace from exploding. I mean, one of the best educations, best parts of my political education was taking the training with cell deaf. Do you know them? Community Environmental Defense Fund? Yeah. Oh my God. So every election cycle, we hear the same songs. The Republicans say, well, we need to get the government out of our lives. We need to deregulate. We don't need these people. The government telling us what to do. We need to tell the government what to do. And then we hear the Democrats saying, yes, we need to make things equal and better for everybody, and we will be your guardians.  

Speaker 4 (36:23):

And over these decades, we have seen some progress, but really not enough. I mean, when you're talking about Bernie Sanders, I'm thinking about when I was a delegate in Philadelphia, a national delegate at the Democratic Convention. And the last night of the convention, which was when Hillary was being, oh, she'd already been nominated but finalized, and I was the whip for the Sanders delegates in the Washington state contingent. And they sent being the Democratic Committee, national Committee, they put a detail of seven plain clothes. I've got pictures and everything of this plain clothes, secret service, FBIA, and then the local law enforcement figures armed to encircle me. We had delegates from other Bernie delegates from other states who were also organized to express our democratic voices. But I think our faith in the system really needs a deep examination, and we need other parties. And the electoral college is its own thing, but this identity crisis has so many dimensions to it that the work that we have in front of us is very broad. And I'm not sure that the public in general understands that. I think they think it's about electing someone, putting them there, and then back to business as usual. And we can't go on like this. So in a way, even though it's so painful, it's so frightening, and it's so awful. I we're at a turning point, and that's a good thing. Unfortunately it doesn't feel very good,  

Speaker 4 (39:04):

But we have to do it right.  

Speaker 3 (39:12):

Danielle, I can jump in, but I was, I'm curious about what you think.  

Speaker 1 (39:15):

Well, I think it brings back to what I was asking you all about how do we see change happening in our society, both long-term and short term? And which leads me back to hearing Resum talk last year and then reading and listening to his books and some of his just Instagram reels and him talking about we got here over 400 years, and it really didn't start then either. It started with disgruntled folks over in Europe thinking the best way to do something about that was to go live in another place and then conquer that place. So it started centuries before this. And wait, how long have we been out of Jim Crow? Can anybody tell me how many years technically zero. I mean, Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1950, what was it,  

Speaker 3 (40:23):

1967 I think, or 68. Okay.  

Speaker 1 (40:28):

I mean, just put that in context. You got four centuries and you got whatever drove those people to come here, grew up thinking these guys were the puritan citizens of the world that were looking for a new place. I really wasn't the case. So you got all of that, you honor, you immortalize Christopher Columbus who wrote prolifically and told stories prolifically about murder and rape and state sanctioned violence that set the tone. And this is a man we immortalized. So when I think about long-term, and I think about SMA talking about, he talks about each of us taking, when we begin to make a shift in our family, it being five generations out till that shift is maybe completed. So on some level, that makes me think we're all effed and on the other level, someone has to start it. We have to get going. And that's what I hear you all saying, like, okay, we have this huge dilemma. We are here, and I agree Sarah and Pam voting for the president. Again, you can get caught in that realm. If you vote for Trump, he's your savior. If you vote for Kamala, she's going to save us. Well, she's not going to save us.  

Speaker 1 (42:05):

Jill Stein can't save us, Cornell West, and I hope one of them are thinking they can, the alternatives to Trump. I fear maybe that narcissism is so deep that maybe there is some thought of that, but our people's movements, the things we do on our block and our street matter the most, and those have the potential to make long-term effects for my kids and short-term interventions, look at what happened in the school district here. I mean, they've gone back to using common threads and other things as a foundation because of what was set decades. Was that like two decades ago? Three decades? Two, yeah, two decades. But there is a sense that when you have someone severely corrupt and empowered and dictating tone, you literally can't get anywhere,  

Speaker 3 (43:05):

Right? Well, I think the time horizon question is really important. We do have hundreds of years of this history. We should remember that some of the people who came over came over because they were fleeing horrific conditions. I mean, you think about the Irish people who were trying to escape a famine, and you think about Jewish people trying to get away from pilgrims. I mean, it wasn't that everybody who came over to the US came over here because they thought they could kill a bunch of native people and therefore have a good life. I don't think that was the intent. What they did when they came over here varies tremendously. So I just think we want to keep the nuance in the story because part of the reason is because that's part of what we have to build on, is that today's refugees are not that different in many cases from the people who are escaping the Irish potato famine.  

Speaker 3 (44:09):

They're people who are suffering and looking for a way to survive and raise their families and work hard. And so we have that part of our story to build on too. So that's just one part. A second thing is that I think our social movements in the United States have gotten kind of swallowed up by the nonprofit industrial. We've thought we could get the changes we need and alleviate suffering by service providing within the current system. And part of the reason that that has been dominant within the nonprofit sector is because where the funding comes from, funding comes from very wealthy individuals and companies, not in all cases, but in a lot of cases want to or are willing to alleviate suffering, but they want to make sure the system stays intact, the system that continues to distribute wealth and power to a small sector of the population. Well, a social movement that is hobbled by having to stay within the existing mindset and the existing system can't be, can't take on the fundamental challenge of inequality and of extractive capitalism because it's too tied into it.  

Speaker 3 (45:37):

So social movements have got to become independent. And there are good examples out there. I've mentioned the working families party before. I'm not a member of it, but I'm a big admirer because they insist on independent power based on their membership. They will help a Democrat, for example, get elected, but then they'll hold that person accountable to their agenda and say, these are the things we will only endorse you if you do these, if you commit to these things, then they'll go out and work for 'em and help 'em get elected, and then they'll come back and say, did you do those things? And they'll check their record. So they're building a form of independent power. They're not the only one, but they're a good example of how, instead of just saying, okay, democratic Party will come out and we'll vote for your candidate. I mean voting, I think we should all vote. I think we should all vote. I think honestly, that we should vote to keep Trump out of power. And that means voting strategically, and that means voting for Harris.  

Speaker 3 (46:34):

But that doesn't have to be the focus of our work. The focus of our work should be on building independent power that then holds the candidates accountable to us and does a bunch more in terms of building power. But that's just one of the ways that we need to be building power, is by having the wherewithal to be able to hold candidates accountable to our agenda. I mean, one of the things I used to do when I was at Yes magazine is around election season, we would put together a people's agenda. And this was an agenda of what do ordinary people want? And we figured that out, not just by what we wanted, but what the polls were seeing. And we could find things like a majority of large majority of Americans wanted nationalized healthcare. There was a poll that actually asked them that, and it was way over 50%. Neither democratic nor Republican parties were willing to talk about that. And before Obamacare, when they were working under Clinton on healthcare reform, they excluded any of the single payer advocates from the room. They wouldn't even let them be in the conversation. So one thing after another or that people want reasonable gun control laws, they want reproductive freedoms. They want us to convert energy from fossil fuels to renewables. They wanted that for decades. I can tell you, I was doing this work 20 years ago and the polling numbers showed it. So we need to do more to say this is a people's agenda. This is a people's agenda locally who can represent us and carry this forward and statewide and nationally. This is what we, the people want,  

Speaker 1 (48:23):

Pam.  

Speaker 4 (48:26):

Yeah, and we need imagination. I think we're so conditioned to accept systems and there's structures that our default is just, oh, whatever that system says, this is how we do things. And Sarah's talking about movements that are outside largely of those systems, at least in terms of analyzing what works for us and what works against us. And of course, we can't be just isolated satellites. We exist within these systems. So it's the nuanced little travels back and forth. I think that will, well, we've seen it. I mean, take the school district. That was an enormous breakthrough. Huge. Huge. It works. Some of the tactics involved a lot of imagination.  

Speaker 1 (49:56):

Yeah, I was going to say that. I said, I think we have to realize and understand, I think you're naming this, that people are vastly ambivalent. And so both in the way we think, and I think the way our trauma has hit us as a society and personally, and so I think a lot of us want to engage new forms of organizing or being together as a community. And I think a lot of times at the same time, people aren't ready to do so. There's some comfort in doing it the old way. So I just think we're up against, we have to realize that we're in this complex social movement where we're both invited to understand and know where we came from. And like Sarah, you pointed out the nuance of how we got here. It's not just one story or the other story, but we're also comfortable, I think on both sides of the coin, whether you're liberal or conservative, there's a similarity and you're comfortable and holding that type binary.  

Speaker 3 (51:06):

You're comfortable, but you're also afraid, right? I mean, we get into the reptilian mindset because we feel so under attack, and then we go into our more simple way of thinking. And I think the other side that we need to be doing our best to work on is to soothe our own alarm and fear by supporting one another, but then by opening that up so that more and more people can have that sense of possibility and belonging and joy and celebration and all the things that can happen at a community level that start calming people's anxiety and giving them a sense of hope and giving them the sense that we as a community have possibilities and can exercise our imaginative power and can make things different because we actually can when we're together in a way that we really can't on our own.  

Speaker 1 (52:07):

Pam, now that we solve that problem,  

Speaker 3 (52:17):

Yay, let's go and vote.  

Speaker 1 (52:24):

I didn't. I mean, I think the temptation is to try to wrap it up, but we just can't, to be honest. This is a conversation that hopefully not just for a podcast, but hopefully it's ongoing with people in our actual proximity.  

Speaker 4 (52:42):

Well, for one thing, the election isn't going to be decided on November the fifth. I mean, this is probably going to be the longest election ever, at least in this country. So I think it's important to have our communities know that we are paying attention and we are present especially, I mean, did you see the day that, I think it was a couple days ago when Trump gave that rally and made all of those disgusting remarks about Arnold Palmer and so forth? The thing that I think really fueled him for that was that just before that rally, 49 of 67 county sheriffs in Pennsylvania met with him to endorse the Trump presidency. And so when we put that together with things like the pre-positioned fake electors and all of the mechanics that go into our electoral process, I think it's going to be a while. Until this is settled, the outcome is settled, and I think it's important for us to have a presence based in peace and non-violence and tolerance. And I think it's really going to test us.  

Speaker 3 (54:52):

I agree with you. I think it's going to be really tough in the swing states. I mean, luckily for Washington, I think we'll probably be less in the crosshairs, but I do agree it's going to be really tough. And four years ago, I was on the board of Free Speech tv. I'm still on the board, but I was doing a bunch of research for them to find local people in each of the swing states that they could interview to find out what was going on on the ground. Because I just felt like anybody who thinks that Trump is going to give way to peacefully to a victory on the other side is kidding themselves. He's made clear. He made clear then. But he really is made clear now, and I think because of January 6th, there's more awareness now that we really have to have some safeguards in place. I don't know that they're in place, but there's more awareness of that. So yeah, I think it's a really frightening prospect. And I agree with you, Pam, that being ready to hold each other up is going to be really important.  

Speaker 5 (56:05):

I feel like it's really hard not to villainize the people I come in contact with who vote the other way. The tension is really hard to hold. How do I take a strong stance for what I believe in without hating the people around me who disagree, especially if they hold contempt for me? And what I think a few months ago on a local neighborhood Facebook group, someone posted, she was asking a question of where she could get a yard sign for what's the non-majority party here? The post caught my eye and I debated whether I should check it out to see the 50 plus comments. But ultimately, my curiosity won and I scrolled through them to see insole after insole hurled at this woman, her gender, her intelligence, and even her spirituality all came under attack, all because she asked the question. Others told her she should have known better than to bring it up in the first place.  

Speaker 5 (57:00):

I have to confess, I thought the same thing. There have been moments I've considered putting a sign up in my own yard again for the party that is not the majority here, but when I consider the community challenges I've faced over the last few years, I shy away from doing it. I don't know if I could handle any more loss of community. I need people in my life. We all do. And there's not only the risk of losing potential neighborhood friends, there's also the risk of losing family. Last week as I pulled around to the back of my parents' home, the home where I grew up, I noticed a yard sign for the candidate I do not support, almost as if it was there just for me to see in a family that loves to talk about politics, as long as you agree, I am no longer invited, or do I desire to be a part of the conversations.  

Speaker 5 (57:49):

But the sign in the backyard, which couldn't be seen from the road was placed there only for family to see. It's a statement, a line in the sand. I tell my kids as they ask questions about the fact that me and their grandparents disagree that it's one of the greatest, most beautiful things about our country, that we get to have our own opinion on who we want to vote for, and that it's okay to disagree that we can love people who think differently than we do. I should probably also tell them at some point that sometimes that's really hard to do. It's hard for me to breathe and ground when the hair stands up on the back of my neck and I feel my fist clench when men at the kitchen and my office building laugh and told lies about the candidate I support knowing where I stand. It's hard to stay calm when my middle aged client throws out her party's buzzwords to test me, but I try to remember her humanity. I try to remember that her views are built by reporting that is insulated and circular, and that she's being told that she should be really afraid, and she is. And fear can make any of us want to fight. We're all only human.  

Danielle (59:05):

Thank you for listening to this episode of The Arise Podcast, conversations on Faith, race, justice, gender in the Church. I want to thank all of our contributors. They've done this as volunteers. I'm a volunteer. This has got started off all volunteer work and so appreciative of those who have joined our podcast. Please download, please subscribe, and please remember that we are part of the human race and to treat each other with kindness and respect.

Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.

Contributors are listed here: Danielle S. Castillejo (Rueb), Cyon Edgerton, Rachael Reese, Chasity Malatesta, Debby Haase, Kim Frasier, Briana Cardenas, Holly Christy, Clare Menard, Marjorie Long, Cristi McCorkle, Terri Schumaker, Diana Frazier, Eliza Cortes Bast, Tracy Johnson, Sarah Van Gelder, Marwan, and more

Welcome to the Arise Podcast, conversations on faith, race, justice, gender, and spirituality. You'll notice there's going to be some updated changes and different voices on the podcast this season. It's season five. It's October 1st, 2024. I haven't recorded a podcast since June of 2023, and at that time, if you've been following along in my town in Kitsap County, we were working through what would prove to be an extensive and prove to be an extensive fight for justice in our school district. And at this time, we have made some very significant shifts. I want to get into this episode to kind of catch you up on where I'm at, where the podcast is at, and hopefully as you listen to myself and some different voices on these upcoming podcasts, you understand that we have this fundamental common theme amongst us, which is our humanity. And when we drop down into that humanity, because our work, our lives, our families, there's all these poles and all these different ways for us to separate ourselves from our humanness and be busy or accomplish this or accomplish that.

(00:01:52):

And I know because I'm in there too, we actually separate ourselves from our neighbor. And so I'm hoping as we engage tough topics of politics and we get into the sticky points of it, that there's a sense that, yeah, I don't agree with that person or I agree with that person, but there is a sense that there is shared humanity. And so as we talk about these different subjects, I wanted to emphasize that first, an article was released in the fall last year saying in September of 2023 saying that there was, the school district's investigation had concluded and they had deemed that there was no racism in the North Kitsap School district. As you can imagine, a report like that on the front page of the paper, after all we'd been through after sitting through numerous hours of meetings listening to families and their experiences was disheartening.

(00:02:45):

We came to find out that some of the families felt or experienced what they deemed to be threatening tones from the investigators or understood that they could possibly be under penalty of perjury depending on what they answered. And I'm not saying that this was always the case, but the threat was on the table. And when you're dealing with working with majority world peoples who are marginalized in the United States, that threat can be very real. And the impact of it is very great. So I began to understand that this investigation wasn't actually looking for the truth and how to solve the problem. It was actually looking for a way of complete and utter defense against what these families had reported their students had experienced. It's a very different thing. And I think there were rumors like were these families going to sue the district, bring a lawsuit to the district?

(00:03:41):

And we've seen in neighboring school districts, just in recent times, lawsuits have been filed for much less. I mean, we had 90 original complaints. We have more people that had come forward as time had moved on. And yet there was never a move to actually file a lawsuit. We didn't file a lawsuit. We continued to move forward with our lives and think about our students. I think at some point in last fall of 2023, there was just a sense of deep despair like we put in years of effort. And the result was this report that basically attempted to delegitimize all the stories of all these families. It was horrible and heartbreaking and followed the fall. And in the late winter there was going to be a vote for this school bond. And as the yes for the bond campaign rolled out, led by a committee of yes folks, which included some Paul's Bowl rotary members and then the superintendent, it became clear to different community members that there were a lot of questions still to be asked, a lot of information we wanted to have and a lot of things that just felt like they were missing.

(00:04:57):

I'm not saying they were all missing, but there were pieces and details that appeared to be missing. And when we asked the questions similar to what happened with the complaints, we didn't get answers. The answers were couched in long paragraphs or explanations, and the architects seemed like they didn't have access to the buildings. Again, we didn't know all the details of what happened. And this is just a general recap. You can look at the ensuing political drama online. If you Google superintendent signs and polls Bowl, Washington, P-O-U-L-S-B-O Washington, you will find articles on NBC to Fox News to video clips, all of the above. There were signs all over our county, as I'm sure in your different counties or if you live in Kitsap, you've seen them political signs, vote yes on the bond, vote no on the bond, et cetera. And it appeared that signs were going missing.

(00:06:02):

And in one case, the signs were going missing often in one particular location and a pair of folks who are not married who became allied because they were both against the bond and had been putting up no on bond signs, decided to put up a wildlife cam and we're able to capture a person destroying the signs on video. And again, Google sbo, Google signs, Google Superintendent look for February 20, 24 articles and you'll see the ensuing reports of what happened. This became a chance for us actually to revisit our story because there's a theme of dishonesty from the top leadership. There was a theme of hiding. There's a theme of not giving all the information a theme of there's any extent we can go to that bumps up against the law. By the way, I think it's against the law to destroy political signs. So there's just this theme that you could break the law and get away with it.

(00:07:08):

We've seen in the top politics of our country down to the low level politics of our country. And what was our community going to do with all of this? We rallied together. For the first time in many years, there were literally hundreds of people on a zoom call for a school board meeting. News agencies showed up again, and sadly, our district was in the news for something else negative related to the top leadership. And it was very sad. The process. The superintendent was put on leave and resigned in June, but stopped working essentially closely with the school board. I think it was in March or April of 2024. I just remember that when the harm stops, when someone harmful is told by law enforcement or the law or someone else in a higher power to stop harming it, it's a relief. But also that's the time when all of the residual trauma sets in the trauma that you've been going through to be in proximity to someone in leadership and you're literally powerless to address it.

(00:08:19):

And I guess I bring this up to say that as we think about politics nationally, locally, whether it's a school board member or a president, I remember feeling challenged When I live in a small town, paulville was a small town. It is not like Seattle size. It's like got rural folks. There's folks that commute into the city of Seattle. We're, we're a mix of all different kinds of socioeconomic backgrounds. Our school district is now 38% Spanish speaking this year. There is a genuine mix. So when you're out and about in this small container, Kitsap's also very small too. It's rural, it's small. We're kind of contained on our own peninsula. When you're in this environment, the chances that you're going to see someone that you're know are really high, it's not like if you hate someone about, you're not going to run into Donald Trump here.

(00:09:11):

You're not going to run in here, run into Kamala Harris here. It's not like you're running into those folks, but you might run into your representative. You might run into the school board member from this district or another district. And how are you going to see that person that actually you not only disagree with, but you felt has been unjust to you? Costs a lot. I mean, money's one thing, but time, effort, family, reputation, allies, there is so much time involved and the way forward. You think it's clear when you're fighting on behalf of kids, you're advocating on behalf of kids. That feels really good. But the process to work through that advocacy often doesn't feel that great. You have to become allies with people you don't agree with. And so I think that just brings me back to where do we find our common humanity?

(00:10:06):

Where do we find space to occupy a same piece of land or a same meeting or a similar, we have similar causes, but maybe there's deep hurt between us and maybe that hurt is to the point where we're not going to ever talk to that person again, and how do we still see them as human? How do we still see them as valuable in this world? How do we still gain compassion? Those are things I ask myself and I don't have the answers. So I've included a number of folks asking a similar questions about humanness, about politics, about where they locate themselves in their various positions, their race, ethnicity, et cetera, and how do they come at this? And I hope you enjoy the following conversations because I conversations or talks from these people, commentary from these people as we hear all different perspectives. Now you may hear someone and be like, I can get down with that. I agree with that. And then there's another person you might be like, no way, no effing way. And so I encourage you to listen, stay curious with yourself and have talks with your family about how you're going to engage this political season.

Speaker 2 (00:11:26):

Danielle asked me how I see being human in the age of politics, and I'm struggling answering this because A, I am not a politician or have really any experience as a politician. I have experience as a community based organizer. So I am speaking on this on the outside of things. And then also I'm a white woman able bo, heterosexual woman. And the politics and the systems of power were built for me as a white person to thrive. And so I just want to locate myself in that because my view is of a privileged view. White folks can step in and out of politics without it really harming us. And that's a problem, obviously, and it distorts our view of politics.

(00:12:55):

But with this question, I have become more and more angry and upset with politics, policies, systems of power, the more that I unlearn and learn about my internal white supremacy culture and ways of being. And as the genocide in Palestine and other countries continue, I don't think the political structures are here for us. They're not people centered, they're not community centered. I think all politics are really about power. And so as an outsider, as not a politician and as a white woman, so those are flawed views. I'm coming from a flawed view. I see how politics change people or they make bad people even worse. I know local white folks that are in it for power and just continue on searching for more and more power. And I've witnessed community organizers join politics to really try to change the systems. But I don't think politics or the system was made to help humans. I don't think the system is for humans. And it hurts people, it divides people. I don't really know how to answer this question because I don't think politics and humanists can actually go together, not the way that they're set up now.

Speaker 3 (00:15:09):

These questions are so beautiful and just so right on time for this time, we're in right before an election where there's so much stress. My name is Sara Van Gelder and I am a friend of Danielle's and a resident of Kitsap County for many years have I was one of the founders of YES magazine. I also founded a group called People's Hub, which teaches community folks how to do local organizing, actually peer to peer teaching. I didn't do the teaching, but connected people together to teach each other and been associated as a ally of the Suquamish tribe at various times in my life, but I did not ever speak for them.

(00:15:54):

So my own humanity in the context of this political moment, I like to stay in a place of fierce love and do when I can. I can't say I'm always there. I'm often triggered. I often go into a place of feeling really fearful and anxious about what's going on in the world and more particularly the polarization and the rise of which what I don't like to call, but I think is actually a form of fascism. And when I talk about fierce, it means being willing to say the truth as I see it, but also love, which is that that is the motivator. I don't like seeing people get hurt and I'm willing to stand up and be one of the people to say what I see, but not in a way that is intended to degrade anybody. I am a mother, I'm a grandmother, I'm a daughter, I'm a sister. And being connected to people through love and that sense of willingness to protect one another, that's at the core. So even if I disagree with you, I'm not going to wish you harm.

Speaker 1 (00:17:12):

Wow. Wow. Even if I disagree with you, I'm not going to wish you harm. And I think what I've heard just particularly lately around the talk of immigration, let's say for an example, is the talk about immigration in the context of a particular city. For instance, they've used Springfield, Ohio over and over. It's come up many times and the demonization, the dehumanization of those immigrants, the miscategorizing of their status, it seems like some of this can get point hyper-focused on one particular example to make a political point or to drive fear home across different context, different communities. So when you think about that, do you wish those people harm that are making those accusations? How do you engage a tough subject like that?

Speaker 3 (00:18:15):

Yeah, it's a really hard one, and I could tell you what I aspire to do and what I actually do a lot of times is avoid people who have that level of disagreement with, because I'm not sure I have enough in common to even have a good conversation. So I don't feel like I'm as good at this as I'd like to be. But what I try to do is to first off, to recognize that when we're in the fight or flight sort of reptilian brain, when we're super triggered, we have the least capacity to do good work of any kind. So I try to get out of that mindset, and in part I do that by trying to listen, by trying to be an active listener and try to listen not just for the positions. The positions are ones that will likely trigger me, but to listen for what's beneath the positions, what is somebody yearning for?

(00:19:10):

What is it that they're really longing for beneath those positions that I find so harmful and so triggering. So in many cases, I think what people are looking for in this immigration debate is a sense of belonging. They want to believe that their community is a place where they belong and somehow believe that having other people who are from different cultures move in reduces the chances that they'll be able to belong. So what would it mean if they could feel like they belonged along with the Haitians in their community that it didn't have to be an either or is there a way to have that kind of conversation that what if we all belong

(00:19:54):

In that respect? The thing that I am sometimes most tempted to do, which is to cancel someone, if you will, that actually feeds into that dynamic of not belonging because I'm telling that person also, you don't belong in my life. You don't belong in my community. So it's not easy to do, but I do feel like we have a better chance of doing that locally than we have doing it nationally because locally we do have so many things we have in common. We all want to drink clean water, we want clean air. We want places our kids can go to school where they will belong and they will feel good. So if we can switch the conversation over to those deeper questions, and I think one thing I've learned from hanging out with indigenous folks is the way in which they think about the seven generations and how much more expansive of you that can give to you when you think that way.

(00:20:54):

Because instead of thinking about again, that immediate threat, that immediate personal sense of anxiety, you start thinking, well, what's going to work for my kids and my grandkids? I don't want them to be experiencing this. Well, that means something about having to learn how to get along with other people, and we want our kids to get along with each other. We want them to have friends and family, and when they marry into a different culture, we want to feel good about our in-laws. I mean, we want our neighborhood to be a place where our kids can run around and play outside. I mean, there's so many things that once you start expanding the scope to other generations, it makes it so clear that we don't want that kind of society that's full of hate and anxiety.

Speaker 1 (00:21:44):

Wow, seven generations. It is true. I do a lot of reading and I think about res, are you familiar with Resa and my grandmother's hands? And he talks about that the shifts we want to make in society, the shifts towards being more in our actual physical bodies and present with one another and the reps that it takes, the way we're disrupting it now to make a dent in the 400 plus year history of slavery and the act of embodying ourselves from the harm that has been done is going to take five to seven generations. It's not that he's not for change now. He absolutely is. And just having that long term, almost like marathon view perspective on what change has either for ourselves that can give ourselves grace and that we can also give others in our proximity grace, while also not engaging in active harm. I think there's an important part there. Does that make sense?

Speaker 3 (00:22:51):

Oh, it makes so much sense. And it's like that long-term view doesn't suggest we can put off working. It only even happens in the long term if we start today, we take the first steps today. So yes, absolutely makes sense. I'm not sure I'm patient enough to wait for all those generations, but I want to be keeping them in my mind and heart when I act. How is this going to contribute to their possibilities? So part of that is by thinking about these questions of belonging, but it's also questions of exclusion more structurally. I think the fact that our society has such deep exclusion economically of so many people, there's so many people across the board who feel so precarious in their lives. I think that sets us up for that kind of scapegoating because ideally what we'd be saying is, if you can't afford to go to college, if you can't afford a medical bill, if you can't afford a place to rent, there's a problem with our economy.

(00:23:56):

Let's look at that problem with our economy and do something about it. And I believe people have gotten so disempowered. So feeling that that's beyond them to do that. Then the next thing that the demagogues will do is say, well, let's look for a scapegoat then. Let's look for a scapegoat of somebody who's less powerful than you and let's blame them because that'll give you a temporary sense of having power. And that's how, I mean it's not unique to our situation. It's how fascism so often unfolds and how historically groups have been scapegoated. And I think we need to turn our attention back to what is the real cause of our anxiety. And I think the real cause of our anxiety is economic and political disfranchisement. Once we can actually tackle those topics, we can see how much more we can do when we work together across all isms and make things happen for a world in which everyone has a place.

Speaker 1 (00:24:55):

So then if you know people in your sphere, let's say, and don't name them here, that border on the narrative that says, if you disenfranchise someone less powerful than you, that will bring you some relief. If you have people like that in your life, Sarah, how do you approach them? How do you engage with them if you're willing to share any personal experience?

Speaker 3 (00:25:28):

Yeah, so my biggest personal experience with that was working as an activist alongside the Suquamish tribe when a lot of their immediate neighbors were trying to keep them from building housing, keep them from building relationships with other governments and actually took them to court trying to actually end their sovereign right to be a tribe. So that was my most direct involvement and that was 20 years ago. So it seems like ancient history, but I learned a lot from that, including from working with tribal elders who provided a lot of leadership for us and how we should work. And one of the things that I've learned from that and also from being a Quaker, is that the notion of how you talk to people in a nonviolent way, and a lot of that starts with using I statements. So when people in my neighborhood would say really disparaging things about the tribe, I would respond with, I feel this. I believe the tribe has sovereign rights. I believe they have always been here and have the right to govern themselves and build homes for their members. And it's harder, it's not as triggering when somebody says, I instead of starts with a word

(00:26:58):

When somebody says, you immediately have this responsive defensiveness because it's unclear what's going to come next and whether you're going to have to defend yourself when you say I, you're standing in your own power and your own belief system and you're offering that to someone else with the hope that they might empathize and perhaps even perhaps be convinced by part of what you have to say. But in the meantime, you haven't triggered a worsening of relationships. And one of the things I really didn't want to do was create anything that would further the violence, verbal most cases, violence against the tribe, sort of getting people even further triggered. So it was just really important to always be looking for ways to be very clear and uncompromising on really important values, but be willing to compromise on ones that were not important. So for example, when we were working on getting the land return to the tribe that had been a state park, we asked people what's important to you about how this park functions in the future? Because the tribe can take that into account they, but the idea that it is their land, the home of chief Seattles, that was not something we could compromise on.

Speaker 1 (00:28:17):

I love that using I statements intentionally checking in with yourself so you're not engaging in behaviors that trigger another person further into more defensive mode. Sarah, what are some resources or recommendations you could leave with me or us? When you think about engaging people and staying very present, it's a very human stance to say, I think I believe this versus an accusatory tone like you are this, you are that.

Speaker 3 (00:28:50):

I think the nonviolent communication that Marshall Rosenberg developed is very powerful. He has a very specific technique for having those kinds of conversations that are very focused on that notion about the I statement and also reflecting back what you hear from other people, but then being willing to use statements about what I need because saying that puts me in a position of being vulnerable, right? Saying I actually need something from you. You obviously have the choice of whether you're going to give it to me or not, but I need to be in a place where I can feel safe when we have these conversations. I need to feel like I live in a community where people are so then the other person has that choice, but you're letting them know and you're again standing in your own power as somebody who's self-aware enough, it also invites them to be self-aware of what they need.

Speaker 1 (00:29:46):

I love that. Yeah, keep going.

Speaker 3 (00:29:50):

I think there are other resources out there. I'm just not calling 'em to mind right now, but I think nonviolent communications is a really good one.

Speaker 1 (00:29:58):

And locally, since you talked locally, what are maybe one or two things locally that you regularly engage in to kind of keep up your awareness to keep yourself in a compassionate mode? How do you do that for you

Speaker 3 (00:30:16):

Being out in nature? Okay,

Speaker 1 (00:30:19):

Tell me about that.

Speaker 3 (00:30:22):

Oh, in Japan, they call it forest bathing, but it's just a fancy term for being in some places it's really natural. There's beautiful walks. We're very fortunate here in the northwest that there are so many beautiful places we can walk. And when you're surrounded by preferably really intact ecosystems where you can feel the interactions going on among the critters and the plants and just let that wash over you because part of that as well, it kind of helps take some of the pressure off. It sort of releases some of us being kind of entangled in our own ego and lets us just have greater awareness that we're actually entangled in this much larger universe. It's much, much older and we'll go on way after we're gone and extends to so many different ways of being from a bird to a tree, to a plate of grass, and we're all related.

Speaker 4 (00:31:33):

Hey, this is Kim. So just a brief background. I am a 41-year-old biracial woman. I am a mom, a nurse, a child of an immigrant, and I identify as a Christian American. Thanks Danielle for asking me to chime in. I just wanted to touch base on this current political climate. I would say as a liberal woman, I really enjoy diversity and hearing and seeing different perspectives and engaging in meaningful conversation. Unfortunately, I feel like right now we are so polarized as a country and it's not like the air quote, good old days where you could vote for a politician that you felt like really represented your ideals and kind of financially what you value, policies, et cetera. Now I feel like it has become really a competition and an election of human rights, and I think for me, that's kind of where I draw my own personal boundary.

(00:32:40):

I think it's important to share different perspectives, and I think I do have a unique perspective and I enjoy hearing others' perspectives as well, but for me, I do draw the line at human rights. So I have learned over the years to just not engage when it comes to issues of individuals being able to choose what to do with their body, women in particular, it's terrifying to me as a nurse and a woman and a mother of a daughter who could potentially be in a situation at some point and not be allowed to make choices about her own body with a doctor. Also as the child of an immigrant, I was raised by a white mother, Irish German Catholic, and my father is an immigrant that has been here since 19 76, 77. He is from Trinidad and Tobago. He's actually served in the military and I have a hard time with vilifying people of color trying to come to this country and make a better life for themselves and for their future and their future generations, which is exactly what my dad was doing. So to me, it's a no-brainer, right? Not to tell anybody what to do or how to vote, but I think that it's really hard right now to hold space for individuals who may be attacking my rights as a woman, my ability as a nurse to be able to care for patients and really what this country was supposedly built on, which is being a melting pot and allowing any and everyone here to be able to pursue the American dream and make a life for themselves and their loved ones.

Speaker 5 (00:34:34):

As soon as the topic turns to politics, I feel myself cringe, and then I want to internally retreat a bit. Looking back over the past eight plus years, I realize I have been feeling like this for a long time. My body holds memories of heated, uncomfortable confrontive distancing and sometimes horrifying conversations with friends and at times, even with family, I'm tired as most people tired from the collective traumas. We have all lived through political, racial, and pandemic related. Eight years ago, I think I worked to try and remain objective. I told myself that my job was just to hear the other person with curiosity, but doing that was not enough to help me stay well in the midst of what I truly could not then and cannot still control. I've come to realize that I have to stay connected to my own feelings, to my own limitations.

(00:35:37):

I have to make space to feel my disappointment, my disgust, my fear, my sadness, my powerlessness, my ache, even my longing still when it comes to the realm of politics, I have to make room for my own humanity and then I have to be willing to share that, not simply be a listening ear for others. What's been most difficult for me as politics has driven division and disconnection is the loss of healthy dialogue and conversation. It feels to me like relational loss is there where it doesn't seem like it always has to be. I am passionate about the table, about creating and cultivating space at a table for all the voices and for all of the stories to belong. I still believe in this, and when I'm connected to my own humanity, it makes me far more open to the humanity of another, knowing my own stories that are being stirred up and activated by injustice, by what I perceive to be irresponsible politicians and policies that don't make sense to me and at times scare me when I'm in the presence of those who hold very different political views from me.

(00:37:02):

I have to actively choose to not just tolerate listening to them, but instead to try and listen for something more. I try to listen for the fear that often fuels their positions. The fear is always storied and the stories offer taste of their humanity and oftentimes their experience of suffering, which always offers the opportunity for empathy. I can't do it all the time. Some situations don't afford the time for curiosity and sharing. When that happens, I need space afterwards, space to release what I don't need or want to hold that I heard space to feel my own humanity again, and then space to choose to remember the humanity of the other person, and that is all an active practice. I think that othering people into political camps and categories is easily available and every time it happens, we lose more and more of our collective humanity and we feed the machine of hate that profits from our conversational and emotional laziness.

Speaker 6 (00:38:11):

I can't say it's always easy, that's for sure. What I try to do is see another person, whether it's around the political views or other things that I may not agree with somebody about or I might even actually see them as a quote enemy, is for one thing, I drop into my heart and get out of my head about ideas, views, and just try to be present in my heart as much as possible with as little judgment as possible and recognize the essence of the other person, the essence that's inside all the beliefs and the views, and recognizing also that we all have some sort of wounding from our lives, maybe our lineages, our generations, maybe even past lives and or trauma, and that that can obscure the essence of who we are, and I try to really remember that essence in another person.

(00:39:34):

And in relation, how do you see your own humanity? The other question you ask, how do you see your own humanity in the context of political dialogue? I have to say that's not really a question I thought about. I thought about how to see the humanity in others, so I really appreciate this question. I think if I start othering the other, if I get into too much judgment, I feel like I lose my own sense of humanity or at least the type of human I hope and wish to be. What helps me to I guess, discern when I'm in my own humanity, when I'm in the best of places, I guess I don't know how else to word that is I tune into my values. What do I value most and am I living by those values in the way that I want to be human In this world, for example, for me, integrity is super important as well as respect and compassion.

(00:40:44):

I'm not saying I'm always in this place, but these values that I aspire to live by help bring me into my own humanity and almost like check, checking in, tuning in checkpoints in a way, when I speak about compassion, sometimes people, all of what I'm saying, I want to, even though I'm maybe trying to see the essence of someone, I do try to discern that if there's being harm done, I'm not okaying any harm at all. And when I try to live by compassion, I feel like that's when I can really see the humanity in others and compassion for myself. I view compassion as a very active verb, a little bit different than empathy. Just that compassion is seeing the suffering, but wanting to do something about it and doing something for me. Compassion includes action, and sometimes that action is helping to disrupt or interrupt harm that's happening, and that's how I can show up in my humanity for others is the best I can do is acting as well as being that balance both, and

Speaker 7 (00:42:23):

I'm Diana, she her and I didn't use to see myself in politics the way that I do now. It took decades for me to really start to get a grasp about who I actually am and how the ways I view politics, the ways I vote, who I support, how it actually affects me, and I spent a lot of years voting for things that hurt me without even realizing I was doing that because I was following the messaging and believing it. Ultimately that being a good fill in the blanks meant voting for fill in the blanks or being a good fill in the blanks meant donating to or supporting or whatever, fill in the blanks. And I hurt myself by doing that because I wasn't listening to my own knowing or my own intuition or looking in the mirror at who am I? What kind of world do I want to live in? I didn't ask myself those questions. I did what I thought I was supposed to do to fall in line, and there were people in my life during that who spoke truth, and it was true because it was individual to them. It was, here's what I know about me and here's what this policy means for me. And I didn't get it. I certainly didn't get it.

(00:44:09):

I judged it inside my own head, and yet those people who spoke their own individual truth are the people who were able to shed light through the cracks in my facade. And years later, I remember some of the things that people said or that they posted or whatever because those were the light that I saw through the cracks and it was so memorable, even though at the time I might have been irritated by it, it was memorable because I loved and respected these people and so their words didn't matter to me, even though at the time I very much disagreed and I hope that I will be allowed to be the light in some people's cracks because I know for a fact there's so many people like me who haven't actually looked at who they are, what they want, what kind of world do they want to live in if they separate themselves from the ideology of where they work or where they go to church or their family of origin or what their spouse is telling them, no honey, who are you? What do you want? And when people can be brave enough to do that, its everything up.

Speaker 8 (00:45:46):

My name is Marwan Cameron, and I was asked to answer a couple questions here, and the first question was, how do you see your own humanity in the context of political dialogue? And I had to think about this question. Our humanity is front and center when we talk about politics primarily because the issues that affect us, meaning the black community are often sidelined or ignored. I'll share some examples of that. Democrats and Republicans both speak about healthcare, the economy crime, but when they have centered those conversations around the realities they face, when do you actually see that take reparations. For example, we hear a lot about tax cuts or healthcare reform, but nothing about reparations for chattel slavery, for foundational black Americans which are owed to black people for centuries of exploitation. You can even look at our prison system where men are going to prison without HIV and very low percentages and then coming out several times higher when they are released from jail and prison, and I'll get into some of those stats. Also.

(00:47:15):

When we look at black men that are falsely accused of sexual assault, unfortunately we go back to Emmett Till and we never really talk about the contemporary men. I have a list of a hundred black men that have been falsely accused in the last five years alone. Albert Owens 2023, Christian Cooper, 2020, Joshua Wood, Maurice Hastings, Jonathan Irons, 2000, Anthony Broadwater, 2021, Mark Allen, 2022, Franklin, west 2020, Michael Robertson, Shaw, Taylor, Dion, Pearson 2021, Stanley Race 2019 Rashan Weaver 2020. Henry Lee McCollum, 2020. David Johnson, Jamel Jackson, Charles Franklin, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Corey Wise, you, Celine, Aron McCray, Brian Banks, which is a pretty famous name, Wilbert Jones. That's just 20 names in the last five years of a list of a hundred that I have that have been falsely accused of sexual assault, these aren't things that we talk about. Question two, how do you make space for folks in your proximity who did not share your political views as a heterosexual black male in this country, you really have no choice but to make space for others' Political views as in question number one, we are really only allowed to speak about injustices or political needs in the framework of the black community as a whole.

(00:49:25):

Matter what side you find yourself on, whether you're a Republican, we're oftentimes they straight up say, we're not acknowledging what your needs are. We're not going to do anything about your needs. You can come over here and vote with us if you want. As Trump said, what have you got to lose? What have Democrats done for you? Or you can look at the democratic side where in the last three elections, it's been existential against Donald Trump. And when Donald Trump won and then lost and is running again, we still haven't seen things like the repeal of qualified immunity, things like atoning for the most heinous crimes that the United States has committed in chattel slavery against black men. I've made space. We have made space as black men in regards to those who do not share our political views. Black men have fought in every war for the United States of America. We have stood up, stood behind, been sacrificed for the good of almost every cause, and we're told not yet. It's not the right time. We too need, have needs, and it becomes a zero sum game.

Speaker 9 (00:51:19):

Growing up, we had Sunday dinners at my grandparents. Conversation was always lively with my family, talking loudly, fast, and often right over each other. We talked about everything, what was happening around us, our community, what was in the paper and on the news that evening. We didn't always agree. In fact, I think my grandparents debated opposite sides. Just for fun, I fondly remember my grandmother saying, your grandpa and I are canceling each other's votes at the polls. They would both smile and sometimes laugh. Considering my upbringing, I was surprised to hear my instructor at cosmetology school lay down the law. Politics and religion were never to be discussed, not in school, and certainly not if we wanted to be successful professionally. I learned to smile and nod. I strive to find common ground with the opinion of guests. I was raised not to look for any offense with ideas that contrasted my own.

(00:52:16):

It takes both a left and a right wing to make the eagle fly and what a boring world this would be in if we all agreed. But then Trump happened up until he achieved power. Generally speaking, whether the law or policy was written by conservatives, liberals, moderates, there was a basis of bettering the American way of life. To be clear, this wasn't always the advancement of protection we agreed with, but we could see the logic of it. For the most part, Trump's leadership consists of a hatred for people who are not like him. Early on in his campaign, he told Americans to police their neighbors if they were of a specific religion he has built upon dehumanization and vilification every day sense. My mother lived in Germany for a few years and a town not far from Dau. It was the early 1960s and not yet recovered from World War ii.

(00:53:21):

This quaint little town overlooks the Bavarian Alps with architects right out of a storybook and a stunning view of Munich. It was evidence that the residents of this charming quiet village were aware that 800,000 people came in and no one left. History books paint the picture that everyone was scared of speaking up for fear they would be next. But with critical thinking, we know many of those approved. They've been listening to the nonsense of their leaders, their beliefs that Jews, the disabled homosexuals, immigrants were a burden on the healthcare system, education system, taking their German jobs, businesses, and homes. They were demonized so strongly, so powerfully. They were no longer human, no longer their neighbors, doctors, teachers, bakers seamstresses their talents, their skills and their very humanity no longer existed. We know this to be true, but what we don't talk about is the slope that good people slid down that enabled this to take place in the coffee shops, birthday parties, sitting with friends, playing cards, Sunday family dinners, these words came up.

(00:54:43):

Hitler's rhetoric spread and thoughtful kind people did not correct their friends, family, guests and clients. There were Nazis and sympathizers, but there were good people that saw through Hitler's dumpster fire of lies. These are the people I wonder if they ever slept well again. Could they ever look at themselves with honor and integrity? Trump proudly uses this method. He has people willing to do his bidding. He has sympathizers, but what he doesn't have is my silence, my obedience. My voice is the born power. I have to stand strong and correct the lies he tells and the people in my circle repeat. I will lose clients and friends taking this action, and that's a price I'm willing to pay, but I'm not willing to live out the rest of my days knowing that I didn't do everything in my power to stop in.

Speaker 10 (00:55:49):

How do you make space for folks in your proximity who don't share your political views? I am lucky that I live next to my parents and that my mother-in-law lives in a small home on our property. For years, there was a constant strife between my parents, myself, husband, and my mother-in-law due to political and religious beliefs, uncomfortable dinners, having to watch what you say, an aura of judgment that would seem to permeate family gatherings. They were quite the norm. And each time that they would leave, I would feel a sense of relief. Sometimes someone would decide not to come or just tell us that they needed a break. This would create less tension, but I worry that someone would feel left out or that they would feel judged if they weren't present. And actually that would happen more often or not, especially in my time of anger before and during Covid.

(00:56:40):

As mentioned before, when I decided that I needed to focus on my own sense of happiness and live up to my values and beliefs, I decided that my home would become a politics, religion free zone. I wanted my home to be a safe for everyone. And this was a tough transition. And what was most difficult was creating boundaries for our parents, having the hard conversations about why we're asking people to withhold their opinions on politics and religion and to focus on grandkids sports and family celebrations, et cetera. For the first few months, I was constantly reminding everyone of the rule, but eventually we all seemed to settle in and even catch ourselves when we deviated from how sex expectations, dinners and events became more pleasant. And when our guests would leave, I didn't have to decompress or worry about how to fix an issue or soothe someone's feelings.

(00:57:27):

This one simple step has been a game changer, and it's not always perfect, and sometimes people will slip up, but instead of taking on the issue, we will move the conversation to another topic. Some would say that we need to talk about the issues and debate their merits so that we can grow and come together. But no, after finding my purpose, I don't believe that being right is more important than someone else's feelings. I want everyone who sits at my table and breaks spread with me to feel loved and valued. It's not perfect because we're human, but we're trying one dinner at a time

Speaker 11 (00:58:03):

To how do I hold my own humanity? In the context of political dialogue, one of the first things that comes to mind for me is, at least in political conversations, what defines my humanity? When I think about politics, much of our politics is really about power and privilege, of which I happen to have both. And so when I'm thinking about politics, I'm thinking about my social location as a able-bodied, middle class, heterosexual Christian White woman, I carry privilege in almost every aspect of that identity, at least here in the United States. And so when I'm thinking about humanity and political dialogue, our political system has historically always been and continues to be set up to serve people with my type of humanity very well. The thing that I'm constantly trying to keep in my mind is what about the humanity of my brothers and sisters experiencing oppression, marginalization when it comes to my voice and my vote in political situations, I have over the years had to learn to think less about how can I use my vote and my voice to engage in politics in a way that benefits me because I'm already benefiting from our system.

(00:59:42):

Our system is set up to benefit people like me who carry great levels of social privilege. What I really want to know as I'm trying to use my voice and my vote wisely now, is how do I leverage both of those things, my voice, my vote, as well as my power and privilege to engage in political dialogue in ways that fix broken systems. So I am oftentimes not actually voting or advocating for the things that would benefit me the most or necessarily align perfectly with my theological or political ideals. I'm looking at where are the most broken places in our system? Where is our government currently oppressing individuals the most? And how can my vote and my voice be used to leverage our politics in such a way that those broken systems begin to get fixed and healed over time so that those whose humanity looks different than mine are receiving the same amount of privilege of assistance of power that they should be.

(01:00:57):

And when it comes to dealing with those that I'm in proximity with who have very different political ideologies than myself, of which I will say in my current context, there are quite a few. I am constantly having to remind myself to focus on core values, values over stances that our conversations and our engagement with one another centers not so much around opinions about specific political stances or issues as much as the core values that we share. If my core value is for equality and equity, if my core value is that we're caring for the poor and the marginalized, then regardless of what stances I might have on certain issues, my voice and my vote represents those core values. And I've found that even when certain stances might be different, when we dig into the core values that are at the root of our decision-making, there's oftentimes a lot more common ground than I ever expect there to be.

Speaker 12 (01:02:06):

This recording is for the fabulous Danielle Castillo. I think what I am seeing right now as I think about how to welcome people's humanity and politics are a few key things that are both shocking and I would say disappointing in a day and age where we seem to want to tolerate people not being locked into binary spaces, we have relegated differences and opinion and viewpoints into a bipartisan politic. And what that does is that means that there are people who are in and who are out. And we've had to embrace things that we both love and hate if we ascribe to any one of those bipartisan objectives. And so we've had to in some ways, in our own humanity, violate pieces of ourselves to say, well, I align this part one way, but even though I categorically reject their views on this another way. And then regardless of whatever spectrum you're on inside of that political continuum, and it's hard because at that point, if we say in a lot of other spaces that there's space for nuance and there's space for gray, then why here do we land in those spaces?

(01:03:16):

And so that would be the first that it is an either or, and we seem to be comfortable, most comfortable that way. And then to demonize and villainize somebody who's in the either or space, instead of allowing for the gray, you're either all for me or all against me, and you can't live somewhere in the middle. The second thing that would be shocking and disappointing for me is the way that we've been able to start arranging the things that we can tolerate. And so I can say, well, I love this candidate because I love these three things and I agree with them and I hate these four things, but they're not that bad. And you love this candidate, you love the other candidate for these three things, but you hate them for those four things. And the fact that you don't hate 'em enough over those four things means that you're a terrible person.

(01:04:02):

And I find that just so interesting and so sad that we've been able to say, well, the four things I can stomach that I don't like are somehow more or less worse than the four things you feel like you could tolerate or not tolerate. And so my list of sins or offenses that are easily navigable, somehow I get to become the moral compass over what should be enough or not enough to disqualify somebody for public service. I think at the end of the day, what makes us hard is that we see people in the middle as somehow exhibiting some sort of cowardice. And I think we're pushing people to violate their own humanity and say, as my experience changes and as the neighborhood changes and the people around me change, and my own philosophy changes that I can't stand in a faithful middle and say, well, I agree with some of this, but I don't agree with some of that.

(01:04:54):

And we've called those people cowards instead of principled moderates, and we've shamed them into saying, well, you have to choose something. And I think that is so unkind. And I think really at the end of the day, we are asking people to violate their own humanity and their own understanding of who they are and their own sense of who they are as a person by saying that they have to agree one way if they want to be a human or be a woman or be a person of color or be a person of faith. And I think it's both sides. I think every side is complicit. At the end of the day, what is really hard is that I think most people want to vote for the person that is going to lead well, and they want that person to be a good person. They want them to be an upright person.

(01:05:37):

They want them to be an authentic person, the same person behind closed doors as they are in the public face. And I would say, I don't think that's most people who choose politicking as a vocation, I believe that so much of their job is diplomacy and having to be a lot of faces in a lot of places. And so asking for that kind of authenticity and consistency in a social media world is almost asking the impossible. I don't think it totally is impossible, but I think it's exceptionally hard. Many of the things that we want to ascribe to one individual and how they uphold or represent their own party are carefully crafted narratives by a team of people who are professional politicians and marketers, and to ask them to give you an authentic person, their job is to not give you an authentic person. Their job is to give you an avatar that you feel you can most connect with so you can make the decision they want you to make.

(01:06:33):

And that is really for me, the reality of what we're up against right now is that we want to say we're voting for ideologies, and in reality we're voting for a carefully crafted narrative that is crafted by people who want you to believe a particular way. And I know that feels kind of negative, and that makes me so sad to even voice that out loud and to vocalize that out loud. But I would say that I hope in some way that we experience real freedom and real understanding of what it means to be a global citizen and to be a citizen of this country, is that we understand that. And the complexity of who I am as a person and how I interact with other people and how they understand their own complexity and their own humanity means that I can believe a lot of things that belong in a lot of different camps.

(01:07:19):

And that's okay. That's what honestly, being intrinsically American means, but also just to understand our own humanity in the global context is there are things that I will feel one way about and they squarely belong in one camp, but there are other things I believe that belong in another camp. And both of those things can be true for me without somebody demanding that I carry some sort of alliance or allegiance to one person. I think that's so gross and so foul at the end of the day. I think what makes America so interesting and so fascinating, but I also think so beautiful and so compelling and so desiring for people who are coming into our borders, is that there is this understanding that I can stand squarely as an individual person and be able to express myself as who I am as an individual and also belong to a collective that makes space for that.

(01:08:14):

And that is intrinsically what it means to be America. I'm free to be us, but I'm also free to be me. And so I think politics pushes us into a narrative that is against intrinsically who we say we are, and that really is the basis of freedom. And so that's what I would feel about that. Now, this is an added bonus, and I know you didn't ask for this, Danielle, but I'm going to give it to you anyways because I firmly believe this. I think it is more dehumanizing, and I think it is so incredibly sad that we don't allow for people to be principled moderates. That we are sanctifying the ability to castrate people's ability to be able to stand in the middle. And we vilify them as being weak or vilify them as being cowards because their understanding of what is actually evil is.

(01:09:09):

It's a broad spectrum. And to say that there is good everywhere, it is true to say there is evil everywhere is true. And how people interface with both of those things is true. And so I hate that we have become okay at using our theology and using our social media platforms and using our politicking as throwing stones for people who say, I want to hold a faithful middle. And that faithful middle means that I can believe a multitude of things and that I stand in the own gray and the nuance of who I am and how I understand my neighbors and what that looks like. And we know that some of those people are standing with compassion and with courage. And to call those people cowards, I think is the most ignorant, I'm trying to find the kindest way to say this, right? So I think it is just absolutely ignorant.

(01:10:00):

And then we've used quotes out of context and scriptures out of context to tell those people that somehow they're bad and evil people. And it's just not true that they're honestly sometimes the bridge builders and the unifier in places where they are trying to be peacemakers and they're trying to be people of peace. They're trying to be people of belonging and welcome. And so they're holding a faithful middle to say, my heart is going to take enough of a beating where people may misunderstand me, but I'm going to make it big enough and available enough where everybody can come sit under my tent. And I think that's brave work. I think that is courageous work, and I think that is humbling work that we could learn more from instead of castigating really more than anything else. So those are my 2 cents, honestly, more than anything else.

(01:10:51):

The last 2 cents I could probably give you that I think is so shameful is I am tired of any political party that tells me that they are doing more for working class Americans or doing more for poor people, and yet they're spending 2 billion to fly somebody around and send me junk mail to my home. I would much rather you stop buying ad space and then you actually go and serve the poor and somebody takes a picture of you doing that on accident. And I actually get to see that and go, oh my gosh, they're actually serving the poor. Do not tell me you're serving the poor or serving working class Americans and you haven't talked to one or seen one in a very long time. And my God, you have not lived in our shoes. You have not lived on our pay scales. You have not come in and volunteered regularly, and you only show up when there's a camera crew doing that.

(01:11:34):

That is so gross to me, and I hate that you send me mail about it and spend 2 billion fundraising for things like that. And yet that money could go to the poor and that money could go to programs. If there's one thing that makes me want to soapbox so bad, it is that more than anything else, I don't want to hear what your fundraising dollars have done to actually help your campaign. And that thing becomes a total waste when you lose. And that money doesn't go into the pockets of people. That money goes into the pockets of advertisers and radio stations and TV stations and social media influencers and all sorts of nonsense and actually doesn't go into the pockets and the hands of people who are feeding the poor that is garbage. So I feel very strongly about that, but I dunno if this is what you need, but that's how I make space. I make space for people who live at Principled Middle because I think blessed are the peacemakers and I want them to feel safe with me.

Speaker 13 (01:12:26):

Good morning. My name is Luis Cast. How do I see my own humanity in this political context? Well, it's simple as that. I'm a human being. I'm not a pawn or a little peace on a game. I'm a human being born and raised in Mexico, but I live here in the United States over half of my life now, and I'm a human being. And no matter what the promises they give me or what they're going to do in government, I'm still just a human being that wants the best for me and my family. And that's what they need to address the human being in us regarding not regarding color or race or where they come from. Treat us a as human beings. And the other question, how do I make space for folks who do not share my political view?

(01:13:46):

Well, again, it's just simple. I was taught that love whoever disagree with you or even your enemy. But to be honest, that's the hardest thing to do. People that don't agree with you or you don't agree with them, and sometimes they even hurt you. But I try to do my best, honestly, just to listen and sometimes put myself in their shoes because everybody has been brought up differently in families, cultures, regions of the country from the south, from New England, they call in the west in California. So we all have different views. So I just don't have an ear and sometimes an opinion, but mostly an ear so they can really listen to what they, I believe, where they come from, where they come from. So that is what I try to do. No, perfect, but that's what I try to do.

Speaker 14 (01:14:59):

Hi, my name is Claire. I am a white, cisgender, heterosexual woman. I live in Paulsboro, Washington. So the first question is how do I see my humanity in the context of this current political moment? And I'd start off by saying I come from a pretty privileged place, like my own personal humanity isn't very threatened just because I'm white, I'm straight, and yeah, my own family background. I have a lot of support and I'm not ever threatened with becoming homeless or something if I can't pay my bills. But still things are really scary for so many people right now. So I definitely feel that all the time. And I would say that it's just a really disheartening time. A lot of the, I mean, pretty much all politicians, I'd say are very untrustworthy at a local and national level. And I think we're all seeing that, especially in the context of what's happening in Gaza.

(01:16:26):

For the last over a year now, all these politicians that felt like they were progressive and would speak out when heinous things happened, most of them have gone silent or completely denied what's happening in Gaza, or just said really brief empty words, always proceeded by talking about Israeli hostages. So yeah, it's been terrifying because we realize the extent of politicians care for the general public and for the global wellbeing of humanity. And it only stretches so far because first and foremost, they're concerned about their own and standing in the political world because we've seen a lot of people lose their reelections for standing up for Palestinians.

(01:17:38):

And I think what's really disheartening is seeing it at a local level. In some ways, we expect national politicians to be pretty sleazy and skirt around really big, terrible, important issues. But seeing it at a local level has been really terrifying because I mean, they said it was then a couple decades ago, like 30, 40 years ago, there's more crises going on. And that really, for me, I've always thought, well, this is how it's always been. There's just the media reports on more stuff. We have social media, we can't hide a lot of things. So I don't know if that's true or not, but I mean, it probably is. We're in a time of climate crisis too, so it makes sense that things are just, they're not slowing down.

(01:18:49):

I don't know where I was going with that, but yeah, I guess I would just say humanity. It feels threatened on so many levels for my queer friends, for my friends of color, for any women or female identifying people just on so many levels, it just feels like our rights are being threatened and everything feels tenuous. If Trump wins, what the hell is going to happen to this country? And if Kamala wins, what the hell is going to change? I don't believe in politicians. They're not going to save us. That's how it feels. We have to save each other that are diehard Trumpers or something. I'd say all those people are my relatives that live in Wisconsin or a couple of coworkers, and we don't talk about politics, but on a deeper level, I try to remember that it's hard, right? Because hard, it's hard not to hate people for what they believe. I guess that's a horrible thing to say, isn't it? But I see the consequences of people who vote for Trump and put him in office the first time, their direct consequences because they voted for Trump and because of their beliefs and because of what they repost online. That just has bred so much hatred, and it's led to people being terrified for their lives and people losing their lives. There's so much propaganda being shoved down people's throats, the people that have Fox News plane 24 7.

(01:21:06):

I don't know the last time I watched Fox News, but I've overheard it. That stuff is crazy. They're being fed lie after lie after lie. So yeah, it's like people are also a product of their culture and it's hard to fight against your culture. So I try to give people some grace with that, but I also don't know how they can't see their own beliefs as harmful and full of hatred. I really don't understand. So yeah, it's hard. It's hard to remember people's humanity, but I have obviously my own blind spots and my own ways that I'm super ignorant and willfully ignorant in the things I look away from and the things like I'm resistant to learning because it's inconvenient or uncomfortable for me. So I try to hold that space for people too, because we're all learning. Yeah, it's a process of trying to remember people's humanity. And I think, yeah, but it just feels like when people support someone that spews so much hatred, it's really hard not to pin that blame on them as well, because they're also at fault for putting people like that in power. So I don't know. Yeah, it's a tough one.

Speaker 15 (01:22:55):

I feel like as somebody with various subordinated identities, whether that's being queer, being Latina, having a disability, being a woman, all of those things are increasingly politicized. And so for me, I find that political discourse specifically is often really dehumanizing and even performative on the other end of the spectrum. So our two major parties, Republican and Democrat with Republican, it's we well known that those political parties as they exist currently are working to strip away rights from people in all of those identity and affinity groups. While the Democrats, which I won't even say left, because current Democrats are right of center, when you look at a global perspective, are basically using those identities belonging to their voter base as a way to basically get political brownie points while doing nothing to actually protect us. I look at, for example, the current administration's stance on genocide and Gaza and their willingness to fund and perpetuate the killing of brown people while people at home say, oh, well Latinos and black people need to vote for Democrats because it's safer than Republicans. And to me, I'm like, okay, they don't actually care at all about people like us because they're sending money to kill us overseas, and they're likely to have just as strong as strong a border policies as Trump. So keeping my humanity amidst the core aspects of my humanity, either being weaponized for political clout or targeted for reduction of my human rights is really, really difficult.

(01:25:20):

It's hard to see the humanity in political dialogue in discourse because it's almost like political theater at this point because our ability to affect real change in major elections is minimal. We don't actually have a choice in the parties that we're voting for. I would like to vote for third party, specifically Jill Stein, for example, but even if she did win, which is mathematically impossible and extremely unlikely, then she won't be able to get anything done in a Republican or Democrat held house or Senate. So I honestly am somebody who feels that my humanity needs to be emphasized at the community level rather than the political level because I don't think that politicians even really see us as human. They just see us as people to vote for them and help them get more power.

(01:26:26):

But there is so much vitrol and hate in the world that I try not to allow that into my life. I don't have close contact with, for example, my parents. My mom to my knowledge, is a little bit more left leaning or on paper. She is, and I don't speak with my father. And then my grandmother is elderly and is very susceptible to the propaganda on the news. So I do my best to educate her whenever possible. For example, when she sees things on TV about, oh, can you believe that those terrorists in the Middle East, good thing we're sending arms to Israel.

(01:27:28):

I don't have to do anything I suppose, but I make it a point to explain to her the way that the media twists those narratives for the sake of making our empire and respective powers look better than they do to try and pretend that we're not the bad guys. So for the people that are kind of default in my proximity, meaning my family, I educate them. But in the places where I don't have to engage with that, I don't. For example, in my clinical office spaces, both in California and Washington, I have very visible pride, either pride flags or the stickers on my laptop that are facing patients the whole time. And they typically, I think, make people feel a lot safer because I tend to attract the type of patients that are similar to me in affinity group status or in identifiers, and the people close to them who are uncomfortable with calling them the right pronouns or whatever the issue may be, I have zero tolerance for. So I've had parents of patients misgender their kids in front of me, and I will just don't perhaps have the same filter that is colloquially considered appropriate or professional because I think that those are tools of oppression and they only serve to benefit the people who get to do the oppressing. So I do not engage with that.

(01:29:27):

My husband and I don't go to church, and we are involved in our communities via our work. So I work in healthcare and he is a teacher, and when people say ridiculous things, we both will correct it because if we don't do it, I mean we just assume that those people in the community are getting the messages of basically conservative and alt-right? Talking heads that are all over the internet and that are in the faces of our young people and also our old people via things like Fox News. So I am happy to have conversations with people who are open to changing, but I really don't have time or energy for people that are committed to being morons. It's just not worth my time. They're not willing to learn. They're not people that I want to make relationships with or form community with. So I really try to make as little space as possible for those who don't hold my same political views because I think that even calling these political views is a way to diminish what they actually are, which is our views on human rights.

(01:31:00):

So people that don't view brown people or immigrants as actual humans, I don't want to share space with them or allow them to exist in neutrality. I want those people to be uncomfortable around me. I want people that are homophobes transphobes and use their religion to disguise it or culture to disguise it out of here with that. I don't want it. I mean, I think that you have to teach people how to treat you. And if we make space for those people the same way that our current political leaders are saying, oh, well, we have to find room to be bipartisan, it's like, no, there are people who believe that other humans have the right to exist, and there are people who want to find ways to justify either genocide or the removal of people who aren't like them. And there is no middle ground there. There's human rights, and then there's people who are against human rights. So I think even calling it opposite political views is a way for us to have softer language to make space for hate in our communities. And there's already so much of that that I won't concede another inch. I've been targeted by people like that before in professional settings or in just proximity to whiteness and power and homophobia because of the jobs I've held in the past, and it's everywhere. And so the less space we make for that, the better I think.

(01:33:01):

I really don't think there's a way to meet those people unless they have something that's in it for them. I mean people to some their own kids, people turn on their coworkers, turn on their community, and I mean, at the end of the day, somebody just doesn't want rights for other people. They're probably not a very good person, or they're probably really uneducated and need help. And if they're willing to get it, great, come to the table. I will teach you. I will educate you if you're willing to do the work, willing to be uncomfortable, I'm willing to share and educate you and give resources. But the people that are committed to their hate, committed to their viewpoints and want to call it politics, when in reality it's just lack of humanity. There's no space, at least in my circle for them,

Speaker 16 (01:34:04):

Politics. Well, my humanity in the context of political dialogue, that's a tough one for me at work. I avoid it like the plague. I feel like it doesn't belong in my workplace. However, if I see injustices happening around me, I speak up and my kids do too. And I'm actually proud because my kids do it more than I do, and they're not afraid to speak up. I was raised in a household where we were taught to celebrate differences, and when I started learning that people were taught to fear them, it was very sad for me. And it continues to get more and more divisive in our country, and people are voting on single issue items that will then harm whole swaths of the population, and they just don't seem to care. That's disturbing to me. It really is disturbing. It's scary, but I am not going to just run.

(01:35:04):

I think a lot of people just want to run to a different country, and I get it, but being privileged, I am not going to run because that means I have the ability to help other people. So that's what I'm going to do. I once wrote a poem that ended be sure that if I'm one or 1 billion strong, I will fight the darkness from choking the life out of me for even one day or one minute more and hope that someone somewhere is watching and says, yes, me too. Well, that's, that's me. I'm not going to get on top of a soapbox, but I am going to fight the darkness from choking the life out of me into the office. So that's how it affects me. And it's deeply sad that I have people in my life that I care about who really just don't give a rip about the fact that the way they vote is going to harm people because they care about their one issue and they manipulate the words of people to fit what they want instead of actually looking at the truth. That's hard. That's just really hard as far as how do I make space for folks who don't share

(01:36:21):

My views also difficult, but I do have to do that at work. It's easier. I have compassion for people's suffering. And there are people who truly do believe some of the stuff out there that is just completely false, and it causes them to have health problems. And so I pay attention to the health problems without paying attention to why they have them other than to say, maybe you should stop watching these channels that you're watching because it's making your blood pressure worse or whatever. And if people say things that are harmful in the name of politics, I really can't make space for that. If they have a view that's different than mine, that is legitimately backed by facts, I will listen even if I disagree. And there are a lot of those out there, I know there are issues like that as well, and I get that and I will make space and listen for those.

(01:37:18):

But when it comes to making choices that are going to harm other people because they just don't care that I can't really abide, and those seem to take precedent for me right now, and I honestly take little tiny bites of news because I see and hear a lot of sadness in my job, and it's overwhelming at times. And politics can become an additional weight on me, and I really want to hold space for my patients and my family and make space for people to disagree with me, but not belittle or harm others. And to not say bigoted things in front of me, I won't stand for that. And I'm also okay with correcting people, and once is enough, I don't need to keep correcting and correcting. I feel like if people are like, oh, this not true thing is happening, and I can say, you know what? That's actually not true. And if they double down, then it's not my job to continue to try to convince them they've already made their choice. I'm not going to convince them, but I can definitely say my piece once and then I'm done. So anyway, that's my 2 cents. I hope that helps.

Speaker 17 (01:38:40):

Thank you for the questions, Danielle. You always make me think, so I appreciate that. The first question being, how do you see your own humanity in the context of political dialogue? Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that. So I will answer the question with that in mind. In order to look at my humanity, I must look at myself as a woman in a woman's body. That would be the first way I would see myself as well as the first aspect of any political dialogue that I would be a part of, either individually or collectively. That's how I would be seen and heard as a woman in a woman's body. And I think that's very significant to the question that you're asking.

(01:39:36):

In addition to that, as a woman who lives in the South Birmingham, Alabama, to be exact, I am also forced to recognize that although I see myself as having my own mind and my own voice and my own ideas, and by the way, worked very hard to attain those, I'm not really seen or factored in or recognized as a force to be accounted for as part of the political dialogue in this part of the country. Sad but true. In addition to that, as a woman in a woman's body living and working as a relational psychotherapist with women and their trauma in the political climate of the south, which has been drenched in the patriarchal consciousness and racism, it is a continual unpacking of not only original individual traumas, but a lot of political re-traumatization, not only of myself, but as well as the women I work with and the collective political trauma that women have endured for centuries.

(01:40:44):

So speaking on behalf of my own humanity as a woman, as well as the woman I work with who are subjected to being alienated and disregarded in the political dialogue, it very much can feel like a devaluation in most political dialogues. That's my experience in my private practice. One of the philosophies that I try to attain to is making space for humanity and subjectivity. So I think it's actually fitting to quote Martin Buber here and how he views what a dialogue actually is. And he has been quoted as saying that genuine dialogue is actually very rare. So to quote him, he says, in today's partisan politics, it seems to be non-existent. What this seems to indicate is that politicians are treating one another in Arian terms as I, and its, there is no apparent respect for one another's otherness or personhood. One cannot engage in a genuine dialogue with another human being if one is being treated, one is treating that other human being as a mere object, as something less than human.

(01:42:04):

A genuine dialogue occurs when people strive to engage in what Buber calls I thou relationships where one person acknowledges the other person's subjectivity, and at the very least and at best sees and respects that person's inner divinity. So with Martin Buber being quoted and my experience as a woman in the South, it brings me back to my original comment that I'm not actually sure that a political dialogue is taking place that I could be a part of, and geographically, I see my humanity as devalued in the political dialogue. The second question you asked is how do you make space for folks in your proximity who do not share my political views? And personally, I think this is a deeply psychological problem. There is a very difficult topic to make space for. What I do personally is I try to tend to the parts of me that feel othered, that I've alienated and offer compassion.

(01:43:14):

I think compassion for myself as well as offering forgiveness and tenderness and laying flowers at the feet of all the iterations of the women I've been as Emory Hall writes, actually helps me offer that same compassion to others who disagree with me politically or otherwise. It can be extremely hard as I've experienced religious trauma, and unfortunately, we live in a political time that cannot be separated from religion. So holding space for the very ideologies and the high control systems that I experienced, Tarin can take a lot of intentionality. I always want to continue evolving to realize that I have more capacity now than I used to, and I used to believe things differently politically than I do now. So if I can keep tending to the self judgments I have, this will lead me to offering less judgment to others, opening up space for them to bring their subjectivity in, and allowing me to move compassionately to offering space to other humans in the political dialogue.

Speaker 18 (01:44:20):

Recording for Daniella, my friend, I guess in navigating conversations in this political environment as a black woman, and especially having conversations where I may be talking with someone who doesn't agree with my liberation, I can find really challenging. I try to maintain my humanity by grounding myself and empathy and patience. I remind myself that my worth is not and has not been defined by acceptance in sort of a white supremacy culture. And so I focus on sharing my experiences authentically, hoping to plant those seeds of awareness and compassion. If folks have not had a relationship with black women or have been in those type of situations where they're seeing the kind of forces that move quietly or loudly on black folks, it's really difficult to define that for them. They have to see it. It's essential to protect my peace and wellbeing, knowing that my voice and existence are powerful acts of resistance and resilience, and especially even in political environments where we have lateral oppression coming from Bipoc folks is really leaning into standing on the values.

(01:45:53):

And I value, I have strong values on some things, and so I may disagree within my community, but I still at the end of the revolution day for liberation and as aggressively as I want that, I'm not going to destroy community to do that. At the end of the revolution, I want to maintain community and my humanity. And when I look at the worst person, I can still understand that the choices in my life that it may have taken me, I could be like that person. So standing in my values and loving community is how I want to end up at the end of this revolution and not divided from it.

Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.

Link to Solutions article: HERE

https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/columnists/2023/03/10/parent-group-offers-steps-toward-safety-inclusion-in-schools/69987422007/

Danielle S. Castillejo

Guest column

On February 7 community members gathered at a town hall meeting in Poulsbo to support the Latino Parent Group’s request to the North Kitsap School District (NKSD) to investigate ongoing allegations of discrimination against students. At least 125 people attended, including Kitsap ERACE Coalition, the NAACP, Suquamish Tribal Elder Barbara Lawrence, Kitsap SURJ, local business owners, teachers, Poulsbo City Council, Kitsap Public Health, Kitsap Black Student Union, Kitsap Strong, Living Life Leadership, Poulsbo for All, Kitsap Mental Health Services representatives, Central Kitsap school administrators, Bainbridge Island school administrators, Bainbridge Island's mayor and Cultural Council, and many Latino families.

We are grateful we are not alone. And we express our gratitude to the North Kitsap School District for processing some 85 emailed complaints and hiring an investigator to explore and resolve these concerns.

In Kitsap County, we must urgently consider practical solutions for addressing racism in education, its effects on our youth’s learning and mental health. Unaddressed racial trauma in our schools creates barriers to education, work, and mental and physical health. Our youth — all youth — are searching for ways to cope with the effects of racism, the pandemic and violence.

Therefore, we must also urgently pursue healing. The North Kitsap Latino community offers the school district community-based practical solutions for forming partnerships with immigrants of other national origins, African Americans, Asian American/Pacific Islanders, and Indigenous students. Working together, we give all of our children a more inclusive society.

In the words of Cesar Chavez: “We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community. Our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.”

The problems the Latino community face are deeply rooted in Kitsap County’s historical racism, discrimination, and resulting harm to others who are perceived as “different.” Latino families share an important indigeneity connection with the Suquamish and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribes, on whose ancestral lands we are guests. We are deeply grateful for these Tribes’ work and advocacy to achieve justice and healing on behalf of, not only themselves, but also many other Kitsap County communities, including ours.

As committed investors in our county economically and socially, we are also deeply committed stakeholders in the education of our children. Empowering our Latino community and other communities of Color, which bear the impact of racism and discrimination, builds bridges and creates movement toward truth, healing, and reconciliation.

In a story published by the Kitsap Sun last November on this issue, NKSD stated, "Students and families should feel welcome and have a sense of belonging in our schools. When there are barriers to this, it is on us to have the courageous conversations to make meaningful changes."

To advance these aspirational goals, we have asked the NK School District for two things: Equal access to education for English language learners and a culture of belonging that includes educating and providing learning on nondiscrimination.

We have also provided specific practical solutions:

1.  An equity concern form to be provided in both English and Spanish. It may be completed by students, staff, parents or community members to report district or school equity concerns, as well as give positive feedback to the district.

2. Critical communication such as student updates, school announcements, emergency messages, and counseling services will be made available in the top three languages other than English. Additionally, qualified interpreters will be made available for parents to communicate with administrators and educators at all school events.

3. English-language acquisition and student supports:

- English language learners will receive language support regularly, for a minimum 4 days a week, at 20 minutes a day. These students will be placed in classrooms with teachers trained in evidence-based teaching strategies while supported by administrators in their classroom needs.

- The district ensures all students have access to understanding their class content and materials, in classes, such as English, math, science, music, and all electives.

- English language learning will include support for speaking, listening, reading and writing skills.

4. Professional development will be provided for administrators, teachers, para-professionals and any staff working with children and youth, covering these specific topics: the impact of racial trauma, understanding student needs, how to support students, mental health resources, equality, and equity.

5. Paid community liaisons to provide direct support to families through advocacy, creating safety and belonging, and addressing mental health needs. Each of the following will have a liaison: African American, Asian American Pacific Islander, Latino and Indigenous communities.

6. The Latino community will collaborate with the district and other community liaisons to gather and elevate the voice of their community needs to explore partnership opportunities. Then, within this partnership, they will form 2-, 3- and 5-year plans to ensure students of color and their parents are supported in their educational needs.

7. An education equity council will review the equity concern forms, discuss solutions to equity concerns, implement solutions, advise the school administration and school board, and develop pathways to understanding on behalf of students and the district.

These practical solutions undergird our children’s education. Along with creating a sense of belonging, the solutions build important frameworks for trust among the district, the Latino community and other communities of color. When the Kitsap County Health Department declared racism a public health crisis in 2021, the county recognized our situation. Loneliness and a lack of belonging are common threads for children of all national origins and races in this post pandemic world. Our urgent desire for unity, coupled with practical solutions, supports this community in a world that is increasingly fragmented.

Kitsap County students are asking our generation to provide safety, learning opportunities, and model inclusion, not racism. Let us follow their lead and work together.

Danielle S. Castillejo writes on behalf of the North Kitsap School District Latino Parent Group and Kitsap Advocating for Immigrant Rights and Equality.

Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.

STOP the HARM NOW

Background informa/on, context and chronology of events: For those fighting racism in the North Kitsap School District 

In November you, NK families, were asked to come up with solutions to the problems your students and you are experiencing. As a member of the Poulsbo Latino community I was invited to support my community in coming up with viable solutions. A good place to start is by understanding the laws, policies and your rights.  My role here today is to share these guiding policies and laws with you so that you can come up with viable solutions.  I am also here to support your linguistic needs as an interpreter.  I am not here representing North Kitsap or my current district, again, I am here as a community member.  As I am not a representative of any district, I cannot answer questions regarding district work.  

En noviembre se les pidió a ustedes, las familias de NK, que propongan soluciones a los problemas, y experiencias de sus estudiantes y ustedes. Como miembro de la comunidad latina de Poulsbo, fui invitada a apoyar a mi comunidad para encontrar soluciones. Un buen lugar para comenzar es comprender las leyes, las pólizas y sus derechos civiles. Estoy aquí hoy para compartir estas pólizas y leyes con ustedes para que guíen las soluciones. También estoy aquí para apoyar sus necesidades lingüísticas como intérprete. No estoy aquí representando a North Kitsap o mi distrito actual, nuevamente, estoy aquí como miembro de la comunidad. Como no soy representante de ningún distrito, no puedo responder preguntas sobre el trabajo del distrito.

Guía de pólizas para estudiantes multilingües del estado de WA (página 36):

Guía de derechos civiles del personal: los distritos escolares tienen la obligación de proporcionar el personal y los recursos necesarios para implementar de manera efectiva los modelos de Programa de Educación Transicional Bilingüe (TBIP). Esta obligación incluye tener maestros altamente calificados para brindar servicios de desarrollo del idioma inglés, maestros de contenido básico (por ejemplo, maestros de matemáticas, ciencias, ciencias sociales, etc), maestros capacitados y apoyados que brinden acceso significativo a contenido riguroso a nivel de grado, administradores capacitados en la adquisición de un segundo idioma que puedan evaluar a estos maestros y materiales adecuados y apropiados para el Programa de Educación Transicional Bilingüe.

WA State Multilingual Learner Policies and Practices Guide (page 36): "Civil Rights Staffing Guidance—School districts have an obligation to provide the personnel and resources necessary to effectively implement their chosen Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program (TBIP) models. This obligation includes having highly qualified teachers to provide English language development services, trained and supported core content teachers who provide meaningful access to rigorous, grade-level content, administrators trained in second language acquisition who can evaluate these teachers, and adequate and appropriate materials for the TBIP program."

Definiciones de Leyes:

Castañeda Para Pickard la enseñanza del desarrollo del idioma inglés debe estar diseñada para satisfacer las necesidades individuales de progreso sostenido hacia el logro del dominio del inglés en la menor cantidad de tiempo (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981, Tribunal de Apelaciones de EE. UU.).

Castañeda Para Pickard proporciona una prueba de tres frentes para guiar a los distritos en el diseño, evaluación y mejora de su programa de desarrollo del idioma inglés para estudiantes de inglés/multilingües:

El programa diseñado debe basarse en una teoría educativa sólida y/o resultados de investigación científica de alta calidad.

El programa debe contar con el personal y los fondos suficientes.

El distrito está obligado a evaluar la eficacia de los servicios proporcionados y hacer ajustes para garantizar que los estudiantes alcancen el dominio del idioma y el éxito académico.

Definitions of Laws:

Castañeda v. Pickard English language development instruction must be designed to meet individual needs for sustained progress toward reaching English proficiency in the least amount of time (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981, U.S. Court of Appeals).

Castañeda v. Pickard provides a three-pronged test to guide districts in designing, evaluating, and improving their English language development program for multilingual/English learners:

Program designed must be based on sound educational theory and/or high-quality research findings.

Program must be sufficiently staffed and funded.

District is obligated to evaluate the effectiveness of the services provided and make adjustments to ensure students are achieving language proficiency and academic success.

Lau Para Nichols:  Los estudiantes multilingües/de inglés elegibles deben recibir apoyos adecuados para un acceso significativo a contenido riguroso (Lau para. Nichols, 1974, Tribunal Supremo de EE. UU.). Actualizado en julio de 2022 3 Plyler v. Doe La Corte Suprema de EE. UU.

Lau v. Nichols Eligible multilingual/English learners must be provided appropriate supports for meaningful access to rigorous content (Lau v. Nichols, 1974, U.S. Supreme Court). Updated July 2022 3 Plyler v. Doe The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in

"Email #**:  English Language Learners/Access, Follow up on Town Hall, February 7, 2023

(See youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/live/PrQ1voPeb8o?feature=share) & Statement

Parent - Volunteer (#4) Statement on English Language Learner Access for child:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(link is external) (34 C.F.R. Part 100)

Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(link is external) (42 U.S.C. §2000c, et seq.)

Executive Order 13166

Email #** to be filed under NonDiscrimination and Civil Rights  (Discrimination can also occur when a school's policy is neutral on its face and is administered in an even handed manner but has a disparate impact—i.e., a disproportionate and unjustified effect—on students of a particular protected class.) Please follow 3210/3210P for investigation procedures, and investigate the English Language program, understand how it is currently operating, and make adjustments to comply with the law/s.

STATEMENT: Parent - Volunteer -  

Some of the things I believe could improve.

Having better communication with families in their native language.

Having an EL para at every school to provide services to students on a regular basis as part of their day. The district took that away a couple years ago and the services have not been consistent or successful.

Students would also benefit from a curriculum like the one that was being used when every school had an EL para. The curriculum worked well, and kids were exiting the program due to the increase in vocabulary and understanding of the English language.

A designated classroom would be ideal. Many EL kids use resources around them and for that reason they are always aware of what is going on around them. Working in the hall creates lots of distractions and is not a very healthy learning environment.

You are seen as being "different" or being left out because communication is a problem. I understand the frustration of the families not speaking the language and not receiving support in their native language.

I hope for the best outcome for these kids and families.

It's time they receive what they are entitled, deserve and need.

It's time for Equity.

I ask the district to immediately address the English Language program in North Kitsap Schools, and utilize the EL resources we currently have, communicate with parents on how they can support their children and the district, and engage the solutions presented."

To Whom It May Concern, 

I am writing in response to the lack of action taken by the North Kitsap School District after repeated and clear reports of racist incidents amongst the Latino students, a lack of equal and just access to Education for English Language Learners, and refusal to act to create a culture of acceptance, belonging that includes educating staff on nondiscrimination.  As a mental health therapist in the state of Illinois, our school districts would never ignore the complaints and concerns this community have brought to your board and would have already made swift and significant change and have educators in place to teach teachers, staff and administration ways they can create a safe learning environment and easy access to learning for all students.   

It is well researched and documented that student who attend schools where they do not feel safe from bullying and harassment and have no source of protection or support simply do not learn in these environments. They will often remain in a dysregulated state emotionally and their bodies will remain on high alert to protect themselves from possible attacks and harm.   A safe environment is a prerequisite for productive learning (Maslow, 1970; Piaget, 1936). If students feel unsafe at school, they may be less likely to go to school at all, or less able to focus on learning while at school. Your job as an administration is to create the kind of environment that is conducive to learning.  I am sad and angry that this has been an ongoing issue and that there is such a lack of movement to make corrections, come alongside the parents and students and to start a coordinated plan of action help create significant change. 

I am asking that you listen to those who have concerns and the ideas they are presenting to help their kids be safe and the parents have appropriate was to communicate concerns with quick responses. 

Cyndi Mesmer, LCPC

Owner & Clinical Director

The Art of Living Counseling Center

900 Pyott Road, Suite 102

Crystal Lake, IL 60014

Yourstorygroup.com

Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.

Hey y'all, some reason I have to think that all of us got into this work is because there's something about telling our story or being on the other side of listening to someone else's story that connects us. And it's not just the pain that connects us, it's the goodness that brings us together when we can be with another person in their pain and the story of their people and the pain of their people. And when we joined them in that, when we witnessed them in that story, there's a sense of love, a sense of healing, a sense of like, you're not alone anymore. A sense of we can be together on this and move forward. And so the past weekend, we weren't together. I felt that rupture. So what does it mean to tell a truer story? What does it mean to engage collective trauma, but also collective healing?

I mean, when we think about collective trauma, it's a traumatic experience. Like here's the, like by the book Play of Collective Trauma, it's a traumatic experience that affects entire people, groups, communities, or societies. The size and scope of which shatter the very fabric of the communities impacted. I think about Uvalde, I think about Buffalo. I think about the Atlanta massacre. There's a number of examples we have in our communities of collective trauma. It not only brings distress and negative feelings and consequences to individuals, but it also changes the very fabric of our communities. A sense of life, like before the event, and a sense of life after the cataclysmic event. When I think about collective trauma and the Latinx story, it's like, how do we even define Latinx, right? Like, I'm Mexican. My mom's mostly indigenous, and her family came over from Mexico. Then I know there's those of us that come from other countries in Latin America that are often forgotten.

There's Puerto Rico, there's Afro-Latinos, there's the indigenous Latinos, there's fair-skinned Latinos. There's really dark-skinned Latinos that aren't black. So we have this wide variety of what it is that's come to be called commonly as Latinx. So when we talk about telling, uh, a truer story, we're engaging all of these ethnicities at once under the Latinx umbrella, which actually isn't very fair. We're talking about memories. We have these collective traumas. We didn't really talk about collective resilience, but let's be real. We have collective ways of being resilient and surviving and thriving. We're not just surviving. Many of our communities are thriving in our own ways. But let's go back to collective memory. So we remember these historical accounts, and there's facts and events, but how do we make meaning of those facts? Or the memory is how we make meaning. What are the stories we tell about the events?

It lives beyond the lives that are directly impacted. So there will be stories told about Uvalde, the stories told about the teachers, the stories told about the students, the parents who were waiting and fighting to get into the school. They will tell their own stories now. And in a generation, people will be telling stories about what they remember from the stories they were told. Collective memory is remembered by a group members that may be far removed from the original traumatic events in time and space. There's three things I want us to think about from a Latinx, and I'm, I know it's very general. I want us to think about [inaudible] heart to heart listening. I want us to think about testimonial like a testimony technically in English, but it's a sharing, telling or expressing these events in the presence of a collective community. It's a strategy for survival resistance, and it's a refusal rooted in indigenous traditions and the Latin American social movements.

Speaker 2 (05:06):

So I think that, that, that might be the sense of heart to heart listening, right? Like there's something that happens where, right, that, that's a part of the alignment is I can read with my eyes the, the space, right? And then this thing about testimonial, what comes to my mind is that the phraseology keeping it real, right? This idea that with there, like the story that is being told needs to be a true story. Mm-hmm. , we have lots of, you know, when you hear the snaps and all this, but the sense that something has resonated in my body, w with the sense of like, now what you just said is that that's the truth, right? Mm-hmm. and, and, and a problem. If that, if that's not what happens, right? To the point, that is a compliment. Oh, he keeps it real. She keeps it real. He keeps it 100, right? It's the basic sense. You're, you are telling, you're, you're saying the story that you're giving is the truer or truest version of what happened. Um, and probably for the last one, in terms of trust or confidence or inclusion,

My, I I will probably say, um, the, the sense when I be like, oh, that's my girl and we're here, right? Mm-hmm. , that's, and again, with the eyes, it's something like these two things. If the first two things happen that leaves the door open for a sense of, there, there is a trust and a confidence in the sense that we are in alignment together, right? Right. And, um, if one of those three things is not legit, then you are out. We are like, we not here. Mm-hmm. , do you know what I'm saying? I mean, that's very, uh, colloquial in the language, but I think the, the, the dynamic is true nonetheless. Right? What's the version? And so there is a sense even that my whole body has to be engaged in the process for me to feel this kind of alignment. I need to see it, touch it, taste it, hear it. Like all of my senses need to be engaged before I feel like I could say, right? And if I, if I don't have that, I don't know. I don't know. You , right? Like, I don't know. You like that?

Speaker 1 (07:32):

Mm-hmm. ? Mm, mm-hmm. . Tj, any thoughts or anything to add or comments? Not yet that I'm enjoying this conversation. I think one thing I wanted to add, Brooklyn is like, trust is something that happened at my daughter's quinceanera. Now my fam, no, they're not my family, but I'm calling them my family. They all came and chow and Corte, it's their, um, their daughter and their, and their son-in-law came, the son-in-law's white. He's, and he's, he's joined the family. And, uh, they're always telling me like, Hey, he didn't say hi to so-and-so, can you help him out? You know? So he didn't speak.

Speaker 2 (08:14):

Yeah.

Speaker 1 (08:15):

Didn't speak. So, uh, that's a big thing, right? To say hi to everybody. I'm all say, Hey, did you say hi to them? He is like, I think I did. I'm like, brother, like, you better go do it again. They don't feel like you really said hi. He's like, I waved. I'm like, no. They wanna like, no, that

Speaker 2 (08:29):

Ain't no,

Speaker 1 (08:30):

No. They, you gotta like shake your hand. And so they're giving him, they're giving him hands, right? But they, they're keeping him. They're not, they're not, they're not pushing him out. And so at, at the point where the dancing was on and the dj, they requested a song and they're like, Sam, Sam, get out there and dance. And Sam was like, okay. And it's this, it's this, basically it's this Mexican line dance. And he was right on it. He had the whole dance down and everybody cheered for him. They were like, you're in, you're in. And they were going nuts. And afterwards he was glowing. He was so happy. And it, it wasn't a sense of like, if he didn't do it right, he was gonna be ridiculed. It was just like, you're part of us, you know? Mm-hmm. . And so that's kind of what I think too about trust and inclusion, like the trust to share moments like that with someone mm-hmm. even in fun times, you know? Mm-hmm. . Yeah. Does that make sense? It

Speaker 2 (09:33):

Makes perfect sense.

Speaker 1 (09:35):

I wish you could see this guideline dance. It

Speaker 2 (09:38):

Makes perfect sense.

Speaker 1 (09:40):

. And by the way, Mexicans do a lot of line dancing. And that's,

Speaker 2 (09:44):

I mean, you know, black people know a little bit, just a little bit, just a little bit about mine.

Speaker 1 (09:50):

So we have [inaudible] testimonial and za, these are the three elements that I believe are essential when bringing our voices, when bringing our stories, when living inside of the collective story of Latinx peoples. What happens when that story is fragmented or edited? When we just take out a little piece of history when we say, oh yeah, there were three cops at Uvalde. What happens to the story? What happens to the memory of that story? And how is that passed on from generation to degeneration?

Speaker 2 (10:29):

And by the time they get off the ship, it is, it is the creation of a new people group,

(10:36):

Which is, it's, it's mildly controversial, but not really. Cuz nobody, even though, even though there's a whole sort of back to Africa and I wanna do the 23 and me thing and find out like what tribe from Ghana I came from, it, it isn't really about that kind of fracturing, right? Mm-hmm. and I and so there wasn't people, there's something about what she said that resonates with people enough that you didn't hear any real pushback on, on that ideology. So I'm wondering Right, if I'm wondering about that, I'm wondering about that felt experience and lived reality and if the invitation, even in the Latinx experience, is to not, not, not fracture it that much, right? Is there some invitation in the text and in the lived experience that is about, we we're not going back to Eden

Speaker 1 (11:26):

Mm-hmm.

Speaker 2 (11:27):

We're we like, we are pressing forward to, to the city of God and when we get there, your, you are, you will be able to hold and there's absolute invitation from Jesus to hold Mexican American

Speaker 1 (11:44):

Mm-hmm. mm-hmm. ,

Speaker 2 (11:49):

Right? In a way that would allow you to note the Asian ancestry and the African ancestry, whatever else in the indigenous ancestry with all the honor and celebration it deserves, and not have that be a fracture. But African American, it is, is a term of respect. And it, and it's also a notation that you are an outsider cuz we don't call each other that mm-hmm. , you know what I mean? So, and, and to me, whenever I say like Asian American, I feel stupid. Like I be, I feel like I'm un I'm entering into the conversation in a way that is unintelligent because I, I, I think it's a dishonor to, to slap that name when what I really wanna know is what country are you from? And is it better for me to identify you as Japanese-American or Chinese-American or Taiwanese than it is for me to say Asian American. You know what I mean? Like, I, I just feel the awkwardness of how's this gonna read a a again, I think because I'm aware none of these are self named monikers. Mm-hmm. , they're all imposed, but, um, by whiteness. And so it always feels awkward.

Speaker 1 (13:09):

And I mean, the additional con conversation for Latinx, even Latinx, I hate that word, but even the additional conversation is how have people of all these various backgrounds had to rally together to fight western intervention in their cities, in their countries, you know? Mm-hmm. . Mm-hmm. . Yeah. So they have to rally around that. But even that gets confusing because with the infusion of like money and power from the United States or other outside interests, it even splits. It splits people even more. But I think when people get to the United States, they say stuff like, I'm Cuban. Mm-hmm. , you know, or I'm Mexican. There's not, there's a way of surviving in that. Right?

Speaker 2 (13:56):

Right. Plus what do you do with the, because like where I grew up, if you were Puerto Rican on the west coast, that made you Mexican, but if you're Puerto Rican on the east coast, you are black like end of story, end of conversation. And so even, even that is like mm-hmm. . Yeah. Like all, yeah, all those, all those lines, it is different.

Speaker 1 (14:25):

So trauma decontextualized over time in a family can look like family trait and trauma decontextualized in a people can look like culture. Yeah. SMA MEK had a lot of good points there. As I say that, what do you notice in your body? Are you numb? Are you angry? Are you frustrated? Why is intergenerational story important to you? Why do you think it's important to La Latinx peoples, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans folks from El Salvador, Argentina? Why does collective story matter? And what happens when that story is fragmented or edited? If we just take out a piece of the story like in Alde, what was going on for you when you believed that there were only three police officers there when there were 10, when there was a possibility that the police didn't arrive until after the shooting started, that the door was locked to the school? What happens when we edit the story of a people group, or the traumas that a people group's experienced, or what happens when we edit the healing power that a culture has within itself? When we forget about Tika, when we forget about testimonial, when we forget about the idea of za, and that at the root of our culture perhaps was inclusion and trust,

Speaker 2 (15:59):

I think in some ways we've been asserting that the, the whole, this whole time, right? This idea that like, if you're black, you need to lean fully in into that and fully into the ways in which your culture, that culture has made you, made, made pathways towards healing for you mm-hmm. , right? And the way that your culture has understood and made meaning out of your story, um, and, and, and therefore created avenues of, of, of, of, of healing for you, right? In, in a sense, you're asking what archetypes right? Ha has, has your culture created for you? Um, and, and, and, and that the more that we do that, the less dissonance we have, right? Mm-hmm. mm-hmm. . Um, and in some ways the very creation of sort of the identity of the oppressed, right? Is the, the, the, the very identity that gets created under the force and weight of oppression is that is what healing looks like, right?

(17:04):

I mean the, like, the meaning that gets made out of the identity of the hyphenated existence is to define the harm and then define what it looks like could be healed from it mm-hmm. in a way that is unique to the story that you have, right? And then the truth is the same is true for the majority culture, right? I mean, and the, and the work that will have to be done on behalf of our white brothers and sisters is what does it look like to tell a true story? And what does healing look like? Mm-hmm. , right? And, and I think the, the pitfall is if the invitation at a majority culture is to not tell the true story, if the invitation out of the perpetrator culture is to be dismissive and to live in a level of denial for what the true story is, you never get to those pathways or architects of healing because you, you can't admit that harm has actually been done.

Speaker 1 (17:57):

I actually have a frame in my body that's working towards healing. I have been created that way. And that is good.

Speaker 2 (18:06):

And that is resiliency, right? It is the God given capacity to navigate the harm that is embedded in your story, right? And, and it is this sense that Jesus knew in this world you will have trouble. Like, like it's, it's, it, trauma is going to hit you, right? But, but I have embedded in, in, in, in your collective story, a a sense of what healing looks like and redemption looks like for you, right? And, and, and resiliency is your, is really in some ways the capacity to tap into that mm-hmm. and to leverage it.

Speaker 1 (18:47):

I'm gonna jump into something a little more heady, even though it's about the body. So this chart's gonna pop up and you're gonna look at it and you're gonna be like, what the heck? Well, the chart is made by my friend Jenny McGrath, and she has, uh, worked it from Ruby j Walker, and so it's been adapted. So we have a number of citations here, and I want you to notice that's very important, and this is my take on this chart. Our different cultures allow us to be in these different states and, and kind of like what we've talked about before. And that's not wrong. And, and I think, I think what's hard about this is that some of our resiliency has been pathologized.

Speaker 2 (19:32):

Yes. Mm-hmm. , very much so, right? And the, the simple argument that, uh, uh, because our, our whatever reaction we took in the moment was in fact a reaction to something traumatic is the thing that pathologizes it, right? And, and I, I think that's a mistake. It's like to say that we were kicked out of the garden, and because of that, we built, we built a response to that severing that the response itself is pathological. Because our goal is to be back where we were in the garden before sin entered it. That that's not how the story go. That's not how it works. Mm-hmm. , right? I mean, yes, we were excised from the garden, right? And what's pathological is that she ate the damn apple when you kind said don't do it, that that part is a problem. But, but, but, but the capacity that we developed to live life outside of the garden is not itself pathological simply because it is in reaction to the fact that we no longer live in the garden, right?

(20:37):

That the, like, there will be a reaction and there's good reaction and healthy reaction that is, that is in fact resiliency. Mm-hmm. . And then there are other reactions that are pathological that are problematic and that we do need to address, right? Mm-hmm. . But the simple factor that something is a reaction to a traumatic event does not itself pathologize it. Mm-hmm. , right? And this is the part where I, I, I, tide Trit has a song, um, and there's a line in the song where he says, um, something of like, the devil's gonna wish he never messed with me because I, like, I came back stronger and better than I would if, if he would've left me alone in the first place. Right? And so there, there's, there's something I think we're missing in the theological frame that that is like, um, the, there's something that happens in the WestEd and for evil, God moves for good. There's something in whatever that switch is that rotation, that flip that is of significant value

Speaker 1 (21:46):

Mm-hmm.

Speaker 2 (21:47):

, right? And if we simply pathologize it, because it is a reaction to a move of evil, we have missed the, like, the mystery of God in that moment to take a thing that was meant to be our downfall, and not only caused us to survive it, but to, but it is that thing that actually makes us better, stronger, more like him, right? And so, so that in and of itself is good. Does that make sense? Mm-hmm. , I, and so there's something of the ability to move up and down this chart that is, that is freaking brilliant

Speaker 1 (22:23):

Mm-hmm. . So, so I think I wanna go back to that story in Genesis. And when, you know, they ate the apple and then God came walking through, he, he asked them where they were, and, and through the conversation he says to them, you know, he finds out that they ate this apple and that that's why they were, you know, wearing, had sewed these fig leaves and made this, this, um, made these like coverings, right? I'm assuming for their body. But that's not, they weren't in trouble for their shame about their body. Mm-hmm. , you know, that's not why he, he kicked them out of Eden. It was for what they did, right? And then actually when they were out of Eden, he honored that shame. He made them close out of animals. So God actually didn't take them, didn't take their shame and move them through this polyvagal chart and force them to be calm in their body in a certain way.

Speaker 3 (23:24):

I think that's a really important thing to say. Mm-hmm. ,

Speaker 2 (23:30):

Right? And, and I think there's also a sense in which

(23:36):

That what, what you're, what that means then is that something was fundamentally altered in Adam and Eve, and they never got to go back to the state in which they were in Eden as if it had never happened. Right? And, and, and I think there's something about the gospel that is, um, that that isn't what, that's not what you're meant for, right? There's a kind of naivete before she eats the apple mm-hmm. , right? That we, we don't get to go back to mm-hmm. . And, and there might be some loss there, right. Of, of, of innocence, right? But there's also something to be gained in the process of having God honor the shame and re reshape it and reimagine it for us, right? Mm-hmm. . And, and it, um, there's a quote on my Facebook page, something of like, uh, um, a gratitude that I have for my struggle because in it, I stumbled across my own strength mm-hmm.

(24:42):

. And, and so there's something, I think, uh, there's something that we gain in the wrestling and the struggling and the coming out in a place of God honoring where we've been, including the shame that we have felt that that, so you don't ever really get to go back home again, right? Like, you never get to go back to life before the apple, but you do know the grief of having ate the apple, the agony of having eaten the apple and the sweetness of God having restored your relationship to him even after you ate the apple, right? That, and so there's a different depth to your relationship with Jesus.

Speaker 1 (25:25):

So the polyvagal chart, I think some people are like, what the heck is a polyvagal? And it, it's this nerve and it's got like this bowl of like nerve endings in your gut, and you have all of these neurons around there. So when people think they say, well, I'm thinking with my gut. Yeah, you are. You literally are. And when you feel, feel like I have a gut feeling or my stomach's upset, or I can't breathe, what's going on for your body, you're likely somewhere on this chart, or the way perhaps our cultures have been pathologized for staying in different places in this right cycle. And therefore, as a practitioner working in a cross-cultural environment, we have to come in with an attitude of first alignment and then willingness. Yes. To be curious and receive, you know what Ernest said, that criticiz ability,

Speaker 2 (26:23):

Right? Right. That plus I think, like I said, I think there's a time and a place for every single thing on here. So some of the pathologizing of communities of color is like, sometimes vigilance is not hypervigilance, sometimes it's just situationally appropriate vigilance, right? . And, and the problem is that the majority culture is isn't isn't paying attention to the power dynamics in the room. So they are misreading the need for vigilance in the room, right? And so and so then I'm not actually in this pathological space of hypervigilance, right? I'm not in this space of PTSDs where I'm actually not on the battlefield. And so my vigilance doesn't make any sense. I actually am, and my body is rightfully reading some sense of threat in the room. The problem is that in your not reading the room, well, as you know, as a, as a member of the culture that happens to be in power in that moment, you, you're, you're, you're not, you're not being honest about what the dynamics in the room really are.

Speaker 1 (27:32):

So thinking about the dorsal vagal system, dorsal vagal, sorry, it's freeze and appease. So in freeze we have some categories. Now these are categories that can be defined within each culture. They're not gonna look the same for me as they look for you. And this is something that we have to engage one another in curiosity and kindness. And as a therapist, I don't make assumptions about you, um, where you might be on this polyvagal chart, I chart, I can notice with you where you might be or what I'm experiencing. And then it's a collaborative effort for us to kind of decode what language comes between us. So I'm saying those, these words with that caveat in mind. So we have freeze, which is dissociation, depression, um, raised pain threshold, um, helplessness, shame. We have appease lack of boundaries, overcompensating, victimization, acquiescing. When you are in freeze and appease, that's gonna look different based on your individual story and your collective story.

(28:38):

And boundaries are defined differently. Overcompensating is defined different differently, victimization, acquiescing, all these things. So that's why it's important that you're in community when you're experiencing. You may feel like, Hey, I, I'm in this trauma state and, and I can tell you honestly, I was a little bit depressed this weekend and dissociated, uh, and what I experienced, just kind of being zoned out around my family, not able to focus after not being able to be together this weekend. We also have the sympathetic activation, which is fight flight. So fight again. Now, uh, western psychology has pathologized many of these words. So I want you to take these words with the caveat that I'm speaking from a particular location, from a particular education, which is largely a European white lens. And I am additionally adding on this lens of my Latinx culture and history and how I'm raising my kids.

(29:33):

So you're gonna hear all of that mixed together. So fight is rage, anger, irritation, and honestly, a lot of those I've needed to make change. Um, I'm gonna think about flight, panic, fear, anxiety, worry, concern. And again, have you been in those states? Cuz I have been, I've been worried, like, how's the group gonna be? How am I gonna be? Um, are we gonna be able to hang together? What's this gonna cost one another? Um, then I wanna think about ventral vagal, and that's called rest and digest. So you have words like centered, grounded, settled, curiosity and openness, compassionate and mindful of the present moment. It's possible you may be going up and down this chart, like what is Danielle gonna say? Mm-hmm. , what is Rebecca gonna say? What will happen in this moment mm-hmm. and, and to, for us to honor those bodily experiences. And maybe, you know, how we did with Jenny, just slow down and ask mm-hmm. , because I will be going up and down this chart during the talk because, you know, there's performance pressure. There's the idea of I wanna honor my culture. There's the idea of how do I interpret myself mm-hmm. . So I think it's fair to name that.

Speaker 2 (30:59):

Yeah. And that there are really good reasons why Right. That that, you know, and, and how do you step into a sense of self-evaluation about how much,

(31:14):

What, where's the line for me between like, this is a, a, a resilient response that I need to honor. And where there are places where there's some hyper vigilance, right? I mean, not that you wouldn't honor all of it, but to help them start to understand like there, there are resilient reactions and then there are reactions that are more about like being resigned to, to the weight o of our collective stories. Right? And the, the text doesn't ask us to be resigned. Right? Right. It it, it asks us, uh, to, to fight and to persevere, right? Um, and to press on towards the mark.

Speaker 1 (31:51):

And in in fact, that's what, you know, that's where we can come back to. Like, God didn't ask Adam to get on with it to like stay naked, right? And he didn't even call it out as a problem. He's just like, here man, here's some nicer clothes. Right?

Speaker 2 (32:11):

Right. And right. And, and, and you can almost hear in that a sense of like, like, Eden is where you started, but it isn't where you're gonna end up. And, and, and, and there is a journey that we will be on together, right? And so like, there's some things you're gonna need for the journey, including some clothes.

Speaker 1 (32:33):

And so you're gonna say, well, maybe I've been there this weekend too, but maybe you had trauma. So what is normal? It is normal to go through these different areas on the chart with some fluidity to move between them. And it's also normal for you to be a part of a collective that may be feeling a collective response to a trauma or to even a good moment. And for you also to have your own individual experience. So it's far more complex than either or. It's likely both. And.

Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.

Latino parents, students say they face racism, discrimination at North Kitsap High

Peiyu Lin

Kitsap Sun

NORTH KITSAP — More than 40 members of the Latino community gathered in the library of North Kitsap High School on Tuesday to tell high school administrators about instances of discrimination against Latino students.

Participant after participant stood up and spoke, most in Spanish, offering testimonies that ranged from stories of racial bullying on school buses and on campus to not getting important school notices for parents printed in Spanish. One parent shared a story of her son being subjected to racial stereotypes, being told by a teacher he eats too many burritos.

The meeting was organized by NK High Principal Megan Sawicki. Danielle Castillejo, a therapist, and her husband, Luis, parents of students at North Kitsap High School and Poulsbo Middle School, led most of the conversation and interpreted what Latino families shared from Spanish to English to the Sawicki. They also interpreted what Sawicki said from English to Spanish to the attendees. A Kitsap Public Health District community engagement specialist was at the meeting to help with the interpretation.

Sawicki said she called the meeting after hearing from Castillejo and other Latino families that there was a need to better understand the experiences of Latino families and students in North Kitsap High School, and what the school can do to make them better.

"I may not have all the answers, but I'm hoping that we can — I can — start learning a little more from you about how things are going for you and for our kids," Sawicki told those at the meeting.

Some parents said that some teachers do not respect Latino students and the Hispanic culture they belong to. Others said their students are being bullied on campus and on school buses, and when they reached out to the school to report it, their requests were ignored or not followed up on by school administrators. One parent said that a teacher told a student their performance was harmed because they had eaten too many burritos. One said students are not taught to be proud of their culture at school.

Some said Latino students were not given assistance in applying for college or given information about scholarships. One shared that a student was discouraged to pursue his dream when the student told a teacher he wants to become an engineer. One claimed that Latino parents didn't get notices to attend school meetings and that none of the information provided by the school was in Spanish, creating a barrier for Latino parents who speak little English to understand what happens at school.

The system needs to be changed, they said, and they urged the district to hold more meetings in the future.

Melissa Ramirez, whose parents are immigrants, graduated from NKHS in June. She said she never saw any representation of her culture in her years growing up in North Kitsap and she felt she had to leave her culture to fit in at school.

"And the reason why I'm saying this in English is because the school system did rob me of a lot of my Spanish-speaking skills," Ramirez said at the meeting.

Ramirez's parents are immigrants from Mexico and she was born and raised in Washington. Ramirez is now a freshman at Western Washington University studying business administration with a concentration in marketing, she said.

Ramirez said her university has an ethnic student center that provides support for students of color, and she wishes she would have had that in North Kitsap.

Julie Castillejo, Danielle Castillejo's daughter, an NK sophomore, said on Skyward, an online portal where North Kitsap High School communicates with students and parents, the system automatically put her race as "Chicano," which refers to Mexicans living in the U.S., and her main language as Spanish, instead of leaving the race and language parts blank for her to decide. Julie said she's three-quarters Mexican and one-quarter European.

"It was unfair for them to just assume my race and it wasn't the right thing to do," Julie Castillejo told Kitsap Sun.

Charo De Sanchez, a Latino community leader and a parent who previously had a child in the district, told the Kitsap Sun she thinks teachers should be educated to respect the Latino Hispanic community, She said students learn from their behaviors.

Danielle Castillejo said that more meetings are needed to discuss discrimination and racism against Latino students.

"Latino students are under-resourced, so we need to create more resources, more options," she told the Kitsap Sun. "The first thing we need to have is that the teachers are able to have some training on inclusivity."

In a written statement sent to the Kitsap Sun following the meeting, the North Kitsap School District said that the district is "deeply saddened" by the examples shared and that it is committed to listening to students, parents and the community to address discrimination and racist behavior.

"While the stories we have heard in this meeting are hard to hear, we are grateful that our students and families feel safe in talking about these concerns with us; we realize that has not always been the case," the district said in the statement. "Students and families should feel welcome and have a sense of belonging in our schools. When there are barriers to this, it is on us to have the courageous conversations to make meaningful changes."

The district said providing equitable access to educational opportunities for all students is in its strategic plan and that efforts to support staff development in diversity, inclusion and equity began in 2019 and continue.

"We have worked in partnership with many community members, our two sovereign nations, and families to improve how we serve all students. We have increased support resources at all schools in response to concerns and needs," the district said in the statement.

The district said that all secondary schools have student voice groups with diverse representation that meet with the superintendent. Creating a safe, welcoming, inclusive school where all students and their families feel like they belong is the school district's top priority, it said. It encouraged students to report concerns immediately.

"As we are learning from our students we continue to work to improve systems, structures and their school experience," the statement said.

Reach breaking news reporter Peiyu Lin at [email protected] or on Twitter @peiyulintw.

Since late 2022, KAIRE has supported and come alongside the grassroots efforts of Latino/a/x students, families, and community of North Kitsap, amplifying their concerns and self-advocacy within North Kitsap School District (NKSD). These are broadly stated as equal access to education for English Language Learners and pursuit of a culture of belonging with teacher skills development in nondiscrimination. KAIRE and Latino/a/x community have articulated these issues and proposed specific solutions, directly communicated to NKSD in the FEB 22, 2023 "Seven Solutions" letter. For months, NKSD has failed to meaningfully engage with individual families or respond with a plan to implement the proposed solutions. KAIRE supports Latino/a/ students, families, and community in their demand that NKSD meet them on theirterms. The table must be set by community, not by the District.

https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2023/02/06/latino-parent-group-meeting-with-north-kitsap-schools-over-race-issues/69864128007/

Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.

LINKS to ARTICLES

https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2022/11/26/latino-parents-students-discrimination-racism-at-north-kitsap-high-school/69673972007/

https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2023/02/06/latino-parent-group-meeting-with-north-kitsap-schools-over-race-issues/69864128007/

https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/columnists/2023/03/10/parent-group-offers-steps-toward-safety-inclusion-in-schools/69987422007/

https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2023/05/22/eliminate-racial-violencehundreds-protests-at-nksd-for-racial-discrimination-against-latino-students/70229951007/

https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2023/05/20/we-have-no-confidence-in-nksd-leadership-to-handle-racism-bullying/70237118007/

https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2021/05/07/kitsap-public-health-district-declares-racism-public-health-crisis/4984962001/

IN Partnership with KAIRE:

Kitsap Advocating for Immigrant Rights & Equality

Since late 2022, KAIRE has supported and come alongside the grassroots efforts of

Latino/a/x students, families, and community of North Kitsap, amplifying their con-

cerns and self-advocacy within North Kitsap School District (NKSD). These are broadly

stated as equal access to education for English Language Learners and pursuit of a

culture of belonging with teacher skills development in nondiscrimination. KAIRE and

Latino/a/x community have articulated these issues and proposed specific solutions,

directly communicated to NKSD in the FEB 22, 2023 "Seven Solutions" letter. For

months, NKSD has failed to meaningfully engage with individual families or respond

with a plan to implement the proposed solutions. KAIRE supports Latino/a/x

students, families, and community in their demand that NKSD meet them

on theirterms. The table must be set by community, not by the District.

Speaker 1 (00:25):

Good morning. Welcome to the Arise Podcast, conversations on faith, race, justice, gender healing. Um, sometimes we're talking a lot about the church, and you may have noticed a few months hiatus. Partly that is due to me, Danielle Rueb, Castillejo, doing this on my own, and also just in February, having a town hall and gathering the community together, which I want to talk more about and, and which this situation with the school board has not been resolved yet. So sadly, that has taken an, an honorable place of, of my time and I'm continuing to work towards that. But I thought it might be helpful to tell a little bit of the history of how that got started and, um, what happened for me and why the meeting happened in November of 2022. If you're following along, I'll put some links to the Kitsap Sun articles, uh, in the notes.  

But if you're following along with the story, there was an original meeting in November 22nd, 2022 at North Kitsap High School in the library. It was me, my husband, uh, a couple of community members I didn't really know very well. And then we had like seven to 10 days, I can't remember exactly, I could look it up in my notes to invite, uh, community members, la Latino community members. But there was things and events that preceded, um, preceded that meeting time in November. And I think those, that's part of the history that's important to know over the last three years and actually since maybe even like 2015 and right leading up to Trump's election, there were so many things that happened in the school that Luis and I, my husband, my partner and I, we just really let them slide, uh, microaggressions with the kids, bullying comments at school.  

And, you know, we semi address them, semi didn't address them, but just kind of trusted the school district to be following up on those issues. In 2016 when Trump was elected, I got a call from a friend and she said, Hey, we're not doing the celebration of Guadalupe. Everybody's afraid to meet, you know, Trump made president. This is a scary time. And if you're not familiar, what it is, uh, of, uh, December is the celebration of the Virgin of Guadalupe, the que that app appeared in Mexico and she's called the que de Guadalupe. And, and so I won't go into that history, but to celebrate that there's a mass, uh, there's singing, there's a process of communion, and then there's a celebration afterwards. So like the kids would dance, like sometimes there's mariachi, um, there's professional dancers that would come all, all the way to this little town here in Paul's bow.  

And my kids, we got four little kids, they were always invited to participate by one of my dear friends. So I was assuming this event would happened. I got a call from my friend like, hey, it's not going to happen. And, and there's a lot of fear in the community, and we said, no, like, let's make it happen. Let's move in solidarity, let's do this thing. And I even had a little op-ed, uh, published in the Seattle Times about, uh, this event. So we had, we had the celebration of Guadalupe. It was amazing, amazing food. And Trump, uh, his presidency continued for the next four years, obviously, and 2020 hit and we were in election season and then suddenly it was also pandemic season. And so we were all at home. And it, it quickly became clear to me, um, just in my own personal family situation and with the other situations that I knew of in the community, that not everything was equal.  

Not everything was going to be fair staying at home. When we first were at home, we had this, we didn't actually pay for internet at our house. I was in grad school at the time. I was trying to graduate 2020. I was going to graduate. We had this little hotspot we had bought on Verizon and we paid for a certain amount of like, gigs of internet per month. And we only turned it on when we really needed it. And we, we tried to limit our data too. So all of a sudden, imagine you got like four children at home, husband's unemployed, I need to do grad school. And we're all freaking sitting around our table cuz we live in a small house and, and we're trying to do schoolwork and we're, we got this hotspot running. Um, that's, that's an example of something that happened. And it, it took a few months, I think for us to get internet out to our house.  

Speaker 1 (05:14):

Um, just, they were backed up and whatnot. But I actually had a friend offer to pay for our internet. And that's what helped us get us through what was during this time that things became even more apparent in the school system. To me, various things happened to my kids, even being online. We struggled in a rural area to, um, my kids struggled to, when they would turn their homework in online, it would show that it was turned in on our side, but at the school side, it would look like they hadn't turned in any homework. And so, for instance, one of my children, it, it showed like complete zeros everywhere and being in grad school and all the stress we had, I I, I didn't pay attention till I got a letter and someone's like, like, yo, your kid's failing class, so that's not like my child. So we contacted the high school, um, a math teacher was super helpful and an English teacher was so helpful and they were like, look, like we think something's wrong here, like, what's going on with your kid?  

Speaker 1 (06:21):

So it was a combination of factors, combination of internet, combination of overwhelm in a house where you have kids with different learning styles and needs and we didn't have access to separate rooms and the internet capacity to do that. And that's when I think it just picked up. We had some bus incident bullying with my daughter being called effing Dora. Prior to this we had an incident at the middle school where my son was targeted and pulled in and said they had a video of him, uh, like basically like messing with gas caps of cars and siphoning gas. And when he said like, Hey, can you check the attendance? They're like, no, we have this video. So we had other experiences. Like I said, I, I just won't forget one of the teachers who I won't name here, just the callousness, the lack of engagement and uh, lack of understanding. And we didn't say anything about it. I'm not in charge of anybody else's how they're responding in a meeting. I just wanted to help my son get through, you know, this school year.  

Speaker 1 (07:30):

So as you can imagine, it was hard. It was really hard. And uh, fall of 2020 was brutal. And 2021 was just as hard. So things began to build up for us. Had trouble getting this particular teacher to accept assignments from my son, had trouble communicating with this person and I was working full-time. My husband ended up having to quit his job because we could not manage four children in school and all of us absent all the adults absent from the home. Of course, of course not. It's not meant, it's not meant to be like that. My husband would go into the school district or the school and ask for things either at the middle school or high school. Like he would often encounter a barrier just at, at the front desk. I mean, he's very dark brown and curly hair and speaks English, but you know, he has an accent I can understand and many, many people understand him. But, but in that frame, it became really hard for him to access the help he needed for our kids. Then I would have to send an email and when I would send an email, then there would be a response, but response to him, no. So this thing snowballed. Like we tried to have a meeting with the superintendent, tried to get this scheduled. It got put off until fall of 2022 September.  

Speaker 1 (08:59):

So we get a meeting scheduled, we get it on the calendar. I'm a licensed mental health therapist associate in Washington. So I have like clients scheduled, like, you know, scheduled weeks out. They have their time during the day. So when we scheduled this appointment with the superintendent, I made sure to be careful of my schedule, arranged it around her, and the day before she changes it by an hour. And that messed with me and my schedule and my client. But I said, you know what, I, I need to do this for my child. So I moved my client, I was able to move. My client showed up to the meeting. I think it was like an hour before the meeting, the superintendent emails like, oh, sorry, emergency came up. I won't be there.  

Speaker 1 (09:43):

We're talking like a year since the first incident happened. Over a year. Show up to the meeting. I had some community witnesses there. My husband and I were able to tell our story. There was some response, some compassion. Um, and outta that meeting, a principal of the high school invited, invited us to gather some of the families from the school. We set a date. The first day didn't work. And then we landed on November 22nd. It was the week of Thanksgiving last year. And I was like, man, I don't know if anybody's gonna come. And I was honestly afraid to invite people. I didn't know if other people, I knew other people were talking about issues, but I didn't know. I didn't know what I didn't know. We put the word out, text messages, kind of like called friends, but it was last minute. There wasn't a lot of notice. There was there was like, we made like a handmade flyer. Um, not a lot of social media. If you go back and look through my social media, there just wasn't a lot at that time.  

Speaker 1 (10:48):

Show up to the school. The meeting was supposed to start at six 30. I show up around six and I'm getting calls at like, people are like, Hey, where are you at? I'm like, Hey, the meeting doesn't start yet. And people are like, Hey, we're here. So we go in the meeting. Um, it becomes really apparent that we wanted to talk through some stories but also move towards solutions. We really wanted to move towards solutions in this first meeting, but what became really apparent is that the racism and the discrimination and the stories of the people that attended, which was somewhere between 40 and 50, it was so significant that we were not gonna get through just like three stories and people were gonna feel cared for almost three hours later. We ended this meeting. We did not get to solutions. We, we committed at that meeting to get to solutions, but we didn't get to them. So much trauma, so much harm happened in the last few years. And I'm not talking just North Kitsap High school people showed up that attended other schools in our districts because they had not had a way to communicate where, where they felt safe and heard.  

Speaker 1 (11:57):

And I left that meeting and for days I just was tired and sick and my body was achy. It's something, you know, it's kind of like one thing when you know your family's experiencing discrimination, but it's another thing when you hear the discrimination happening on all fronts with other families. And there were kids in this meeting, teenagers, and you know, when teenagers are in these meetings, they are normally like, uh, they're like looking at their phones, they're like texting, whatever. Like no one was doing that. No one. And so I just wanna point out that this is the history, this is where this came from. I didn't know these families had these stories. I had heard rumors and I wanted to hear from them, but I didn't know what we were opening up. And it wasn't just stories about Latinx families, it was stories about what happened to African American folks in school, what happened to native folks, what happened to Asian American folks in school?  

Speaker 1 (13:02):

There were stories, there were stories about people feeling suicidal, people having their mental health affected stories about not knowing how to apply to college, not having the resources to do it. And I won't repeat the trauma stories here because some of them are documented in the news articles in the notes. But what I wanna say is this movement in North Kitsap school district has a history. And it has a history far bigger than my family. It has a history far bigger than my kids. And also because we're exposing the history, there's blowback, there's payback, there's slander, there's gossip, there's other people like pushing in because justice has been stalled for so long. Equal access to education for so long, discrimination has just been a given. It's been a given. Racialized comments and stereotypes. I mean it's a given.  

Speaker 1 (14:03):

And I think at the beginning I had some naive idea that when we would come back to solutions in which we did get to solutions in February when we didn't hear back from the school district that somehow those solutions, they would, the school district would see them as proactive, as good, as caring, as like we're invested in our community, but that's not how it's gone. So I wanna tell more of that story later, but I just wanted to share the history of how November came to be. Some of the details of how, how it got planned, which was barely any plan at all. Not even like planning for an official interpreter. Thank God some people just showed up that could help with that. Because I can tell you that Luis and I were beat like so tired at the end of that. And I wanted to share where I've been for the last few months, been involved in organizing bridge building, doing a lot of apologizing, a lot of learning, a lot of crying, a lot of frustration and a lot of like working in systems that are actually not meant to prevent racial violence or discrimination.  

Speaker 1 (15:15):

They're actually meant to prevent equal access to education. These systems aren't looking for solutions. And so when we walk in with solutions, they're like, what the heck is this? But it, I don't think it has to be that way. I think our county can be different and that may be a fool's errand. I don't know. Sometimes I think it's very foolish. Hope is like that. It can feel very foolish. But I wanna acknowledge that there's been amazing community support and unity. We don't always think the same. We don't always have the right way to get there. We don't know how to get there. We have different problems sometimes we don't like the person we're organizing with. That's all true. But the fact is, we want something better for our kids. We want our kids to have access to education. We want our kids to live in a place where they feel like they belong and they don't need to resort to suicide and gun violence and they can come to us for help with anxiety and mental health issues, depression, sadness. I think we can't agree on those things and that's why I'm here in my community and that's why I've stayed because I believe that as humans we do share those things in common. And um, I hope you'll follow along on the next few podcasts as we tell more of these stories. And um, I'm just honored to be able to share a bit of this history with you today and go ahead and check out the notes. I'll talk to you soon. Bye.

Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.