The First Step in Improving Race Relations: Remove Race

If our objective is to improve race relations, then our first step should be to initially remove race from the conversation, or at least use it more properly. Inherently its not our differences that unite us and facilitate cooperative environments, its our unifying identity. We are human first. Then we are citizens of a nation, state, and so forth. Race and other unique identifiers do cross borders, however, Americans are Americans. One of the struggles we have in our engagement of each other, is that there are no defined engagement boundaries or commonly understood parameters or guidelines.

The intent of the above illustrated Cooperative Engagement Model was to establish an initial guide to cooperative engagement. Although we will speak in more detail about the model in one of our future Articles, this model serves its purpose well for this discussion. Looking at the model you will notice that there are mirrored unifying and divisive activities and that we have to balance protection and freedom. You will also notice that opposition is recognized as a positive variable, as is disagreement. The model can be used to draw lines in the battle between protection and freedom; and it can be used to identify how divisive and or unifying environments are created, or changed.

Now lets test the model with ten key questions! Take a moment and choose a side of the race issue. Ask yourself the following questions: 1) I'm I creating a more cooperative environment by highlighting differences (white or black) or commonalities (human or American)?, 2) Are my words promoting unity or division?, 3) Are my actions unifying or dividing?, 4) How are the experiences I make for the opposing side conditioning them, and how is it conditioning them to?, 5) Do I understand their perspective and do they understand mine?, 6) Does the opposing group have a choice to reciprocate my language and actions and does that accomplish my goals, or impede them?, 7) Do I understand that my protections and freedoms are always being balanced or competing with others protections and freedoms?, 8) Once conflict starts, where and how does reciprocal escalation stop?, 9) Do I respond better to unifying or divisive language and actions; and how will others respond to my language and actions?, and 10) Do I have clear objectives, have I effectively communicated them, do others understand them, how can we prioritize agreeable things first, and then build a positive momentum leading to the resolution of conflicts?

At first this activity may seem juvenile and replacing "race" with "human or American" may seem to minimize a situation. The truth is that society has not really prepared us to understand cooperation in general, much less cooperative engagement. The use of race as the only descriptive is contrary to unity. Finally, the purpose of protesting and or standing up for ones rights or to address wrongs is to produce a positive outcome. Inherently we must understand that race itself is a divisive concept, however, when properly integrated into our conversations; it has the potential to represent one of humanities greatest unifying achievements.

Questions, Comments, and or Concerns regarding this article and or its content should be sent to [email protected].

All intellectual property rights to include patent pending automation of methods related to Cooperative Performance Science and Intelligence (CPS or CPSI) as described here within, are reserved by Mark D. Grissom