#BlackLivesMatter: A White British Quaker's Perspective

'Slave Trade' by John Raphael Smith, after George Morland's
‘Execrable human traffick, or the affectionate slaves’

Recent events have brought back to wider public consciousness that rallying cry, “Black Lives Matter”. It comes from the United States of America, but its resonance is felt around the world. As we see from the incidents that prompt outcry, it is most easily associated with excess deaths of black people – but it’s about a lot more than that.

Now, most Quakers in Britain are white. Not all of us, by any stretch, but definitely most. We’re also mostly relatively educated, with a much higher incidence of post-graduate qualifications than the general population, and there’s a definite tendency towards being culturally middle class. This has a lot of results, some of which I’ve written about before, but one of them is a real difficulty in engaging with the deep issues that underlie the statement that Black lives matter. I’ve seen Quakers in public on social media respond to that simple statement with one of the most problematic responses that we see everywhere – that “all lives matter”.

Why is that statement a problem? After all, don’t we – with our pacifist tradition and believe in a sort of universal divinity – really fundamentally believe that all lives matter? Yes, of course we do. It would be silly to suggest otherwise. In fact, especially among Quakers, it’s so obvious that it doesn’t even need saying. So why do we need to say that Black lives matter?

On Sexuality

People get hung up a lot on sexuality. What does it mean? Is it an abstract element of our being, or does it describe what we are attracted to, what interests us sexually? The word is used for both. When someone says that people should celebrate or nurture their sexuality, they don't always mean their sexual orientation – and some people object to the word orientation there, for a range of reasons.

For now, I am using the word sexuality to mean all of that, and perhaps more. It is that part of us that desires that sort of physical intimacy. It is about the sort of intimacy we desire. It is what we like to do, and the sort of person we like to do it with. It is even involved in things we do entirely on our own. It is what we do, it is what we want, it is what we dream of.

What I Can Say About Sex and Gender

I've been disappointed in some discussion I've seen in British Quaker circles recently. I shan't go in to what prompted the discussion, because that's not relevant right now. What I can say is that it's about trans issues, and feminism.

I'm disappointed because I see attitudes expressed that, while not outwardly hostile to trans people, they are denying their experience. They hold up an attitude that the rights of one marginalised group are inherently in tension with the rights of another, at least at this time, and do not seek to find ways to resolve that tension to the benefit of all. That hesitate to be critical of those that advocate the idea that trans women, however well they pass, should use men's toilets. I might not reasonably hope that all Friends would support the reform of legal gender recognition, making it easier to access, but I would hope that they would not participate in scaremongering that it would somehow lead to insincere, casual changes of legal gender for frivolous or malicious purposes. That it would allow such things to be done with impunity.

I'm a cisgender, heterosexual, white man. I hope to be a good ally, just as I hope to find allies, especially among Friends, in support of my experiences and efforts as a disabled person. I know that being a good ally doesn't mean being entirely uncritical of the positions of those in another marginalised group – but also not to deny their lived experience. Their wisdom in such matters is not flawless, but will be deeper than my own. My own views are not without merit or relevance, but it is secondary to theirs.

And yet, I am heartened that we can share our opinions, even those I am disappointed by, in what is largely a loving way – certainly by comparison to discussions in many other communities. That those who know their views are not conventional for British Friends can, at least in this context, share them without feeling hemmed in by our social dogma. Even if I might hope that they change their minds, I know that it is by allowing dialogue – as well as the illumination of the Divine – that such a change will occur. It will not occur by verbal warfare or the discourse equivalent of a bludgeon.

Safe Spaces

You hear a lot these days about “safe spaces”, be it from those who are advocating them or those who decry them as an assault on free speech. We hear about “no platforming”, and just recently the UK's Universities minister has warned that Universities could face a fine over such policies, as they should be seen to have a duty to uphold freedom of speech.

This is a really complicated issue, with intertwining concerns and subtle variations of meaning in terms like “safe space”, “no platform”, and “free speech”. It's also a concern for Quakers, as there have been, from various quarters at various times, suggestions that some Quaker spaces should be safe. So, let's take a look at some of the meanings given to these terms, which will also give an overview of the overall politics of the situation, and see what they mean for Quakers, both in our own spaces and in terms of our approach to wider society. Buckle in, it's a long ride.

Religious Privilege and British Quakers

Being typically middle-class and educated, and with a strong interest in equality, Quakers (at least in the global economic north) are probably more likely than the average person to be aware of the concept of privilege and oppression. This is, however, a fairly academic concept, with reasonably precise and specialised meaning, and my own conversations with other Friends, both online and in person, have illustrated that understanding of it is far from universal. In this post, I will be discussing the idea of religious privilege, both in wider society and its impact within the Religious Society of Friends – particularly in Britain Yearly Meeting.

Privilege

Before we get into religious privilege, it's probably a good idea to make sure we're on the same page about “privilege” in general. When used in this context, the discussion of social advantage, it takes a particular sociological meaning. While the everyday sense of the word means some particular advantage, such as the franking privilege in relation to some legislatures, and there is a legal meaning related to the ability to compel evidence, or even whether evidence is admissible at all, this sociological meaning is both broader and more subtly specific.

I am aware that some people don't like the term, or even the concept. However, in order to discuss the actual underlying idea in this post, it's necessary to use language that makes the point efficiently and without repetition of explanations. So I ask those of you who struggle with this language to push through it to try and understand the underlying point, rather than reject it based on the premise of the language and theory itself.

We Are Not Above Prejudice & Discrimination

Over the years of my time at Young Friends General Meeting (YFGM), I had the benefit of learning, by explanations and by example, from a lot of smart and experienced Quakers. One of those, in the first several years, was Maud Grainger, now Faith in Action tutor at Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre. I am still in touch with Maud, at least in the way that most people seem to be in touch with half of the people they've ever met nowadays (yay for Facebook), and so I saw her excellent blog post, on the face of it about a particular t-shirt – but really about the reasons why someone, especially a “professional Quaker”, should wear it. Do take the time to read the post, it's excellent, and not long.

It is a point that I've touched upon in the past, such as my written ministry on disability, or my recent post on how Quakers should respond to the #MeToo phenomenon and the widespread sexual misconduct behind it. I gladly stand behind Maud when she says,

What #MeToo Should Mean to Quaker Communities

I am grateful for the feedback on an early draft of this post that I received from women friends.

Accusations of, to put it excessively mildly, inappropriate behaviour on the part of a Hollywood bigwig were made in public. People, quite rightly, rushed to support those making the accusations. Other people came forward with their own stories of attacks and harassment by the same man.

It's not the first time it's happened. It won't be the last. Similar things have happened and will continue to happen in many different contexts, especially where there are individuals seen as too talented, important or powerful to assail. This isn't just about films; it can happen in universities, in hospitals, in big business. In a sense, this time isn't particularly special, when considered with all of the others. However, this time there seems to have been a little more success in taking the opportunity to raise awareness of the ubiquitous nature of sexual harassment and assault in our culture. Women (and girls) everywhere are posting “Me Too” on social media. Statistics and psychology suggest that plenty of women who have had such experiences aren't sharing, on top of those who are. People are noticing – perhaps not as many as one might hope, but they are noticing. Social media posts and web pages are going viral with advice to men on how they can help deal with this endemic cultural problem; of course, they attract trolls to their comments, and perhaps some sincere but clueless guys as well. They respond to these suggestions of how men could help, and they seem to feel that we, men, are being victimised by such advice. That singling out men as needing to take certain steps is unfair, even discriminatory. I don't know how to make them learn. I'll admit that I was once a clueless guy, though maybe not that clueless, and I'm forever grateful to the women who persisted in helping me learn, perhaps sensing that there was a sincere desire to “get it”; I'm still working on getting there.

The Need for Constant Rediscovery

As Quakers, we have a wonderful, rich history, full of learning. We have discovered principles and practices that guide us in our spiritual life and our secular life; indeed, ideally the two should become increasingly indistinguishable. There a centuries of Quaker writing to inform and edify.

And yet the very start of the Quaker story was railing against empty forms and notions. The idea that confession of the creed and going through the motions at church weren't enough, not even for those who tried to live virtuously and believed sincerely. Today, we wouldn't make a blanket assertion of this, but it is our experience for ourselves that true religious experience derives only from seeking to know the Divine for ourselves, and acting in the world out of sincere conviction stemming from this knowledge – not from acceptance of knowledge and teachings received from others, however wise and insightful. The story of Penn's Sword, however dubious its historicity, is an illustration of this principle; while wearing a sword was contrary to Quaker testimony, Fox did not urge Penn to abandon it until it was a matter of personal conviction for him. Even as a parable, this story is a great illustration of this principle, along with the complementary fact that, if we are open to it, the Spirit can transform us.

The Wise Child

There was once a village. The village sat on a road, and there was much traffic through the village as people travelled along that road. This brought wealth, as travellers stayed at the inn, and sometimes a traveller would decide to stay in the village longer, setting up a home and establishing a livelihood. Most of the villagers came from families who had lived in the village for generations, or who had married in from nearby villages.

In one of these families, there was a child. The family, and the child, were walking through the village one summer's day, greeting other families as they passed them in the street or walked past their houses. They passed the house of the local minister, and exchanged pleasantries as they were working on their garden. They passed the cottage of the teacher in the village school as they were hanging laundry, and complimented them on their work. They passed an elderly couple who were taking a similar walk, and respectfully exchanged greeting. They stopped at a village shop, and bought bread and cheese and fruit for lunch, and stone bottles of various drinks, and packed them in a basket they had brought, with a brightly coloured cloth they used for picnics; and the parents bought their child a wooden toy, and they exchanged news and gossip with the shopkeeper.

Then they passed a dyer's house, with great tubs in the yard, and the family stirring the cloth to be dyed, and they said nothing. The child asked, “why do we not greet them, as we go about our business and they go about theirs, and compliment them on the vivid colours and patterns they make on cloth?” The father replied, “that family came here from far away, and they are not like us; they do not worship as we do, and we cannot trust them.”

The child thought for a moment, and took out the cloth from the picnic basket. “Did they not dye this cloth, that we bought and use on days such as these? Do they not drink the same water we do, and also use it in their work?” The parents could not think how to respond, so the child took the cloth and turned to the dyer's family, held it up and said, “see this cloth you dyed; we will be using it today when we have our lunch, and it is wonderful to be able to picnic on such bright, happy cloth. I am glad that we could get such pretty cloth.” The dyer's family smiled, and thanked the child for their praise.

On Loss of Privilege

Some of the angriest and most aggressive prejudice we see today comes from those who believe that their own group – men, white people, non-disabled people, the economically well-off, straight people, cisgender people, and so on – are under threat, and are now being disadvantaged in the name of political correctness. They see civil rights as an attack on white people, feminism as an attack on men, pride as an attack on those who are cishet. Generally speaking, they are wrong.

It is helpful to understand where they are coming from, though. Not to excuse it or justify it, but simply to understand it. Understanding is the starting point for all constructive action in such cases.

It is easy for a person who is not oppressed in a certain way not to realise what it is like to be oppressed, to assume that their experience is the default, baseline, way everyone experiences things. When that experience then changes for the worse, when they lose advantages, or others are given them, it seems unfair, it seems that they are being attacked.

Do not focus your rejection of prejudice on these people, though do what you can to help them understand, or at least counteract their impact – and always reject their prejudice. The real villains in this scenario are those who fan the resentment of those experiencing a loss of privilege, usually for their own personal gain or political ends.

Written August 2017