Wak e up, smell the coffee: We need a race education

Am I the only person in America not making fun of Howard Schultz?

The Starbucks CEO bought himself a ton of ridicule recently when he attempted to jump-start a national dialogue on race by having baristas write the words “Race Together” on customers’ cups of Cinnamon Dolce Light Frappuccino Grande or Caffe Misto Venti with extra coconut.

On Twitter, the campaign was dubbed “patronizing” and “absurd.” On “The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore,” Rosie Perez said, “I don’t want to be forced to have a conversation. Especially early in the (expletive) morning.” Some folks questioned the wisdom of calling for racial dialogue when your executive team has all the rich cultural diversity of a GOP convention in Idaho.

Give Starbucks this much credit, though: It came out of an earnest conviction that the future health of our country requires us to solve race. In other words, Starbucks had good intentions.

I think we dismiss good intentions at our own peril.

Schultz’s biggest mistake was not in having baristas write a trite slogan, but in his failure to realize that much of the country is simply not equipped for the conversation he is inviting them to have. Last week, even as “Race Together” was being lampooned, I spent 41 minutes I’ll never get back on the phone with a white, Jewish reader who had insisted she wanted to have the “conversation on race” I have often said this country needs. It was not a productive encounter.

She starts on a spiel about blacks and drugs. I point out that only about 15 percent of drug use in this country is by blacks and that the vast majority of dealers are white. There is a silence. She says this is something she had not known.

We move on to the fact that Jews were foot soldiers and )inanciers of the civil rights movement, so she is offended that black people never attend Holocaust remembrance services. I point out that her lived experience is in Tucson, which has a black population of maybe 17.

Often, when people think they’re talking about race, they really aren’t. They are talking instead about the myths, resentments, projections and suppositions by which they justify halfbaked notions about who those “other” people are.

You can’t wholly blame them. Who can speak sensibly on a subject he doesn’t understand? And we’ve been foiled in our quest to understand by an institutional conspiracy of ignorance. Race is the rawest wound of the American psyche, but somehow, you can graduate high school without knowing who Emmett Till was or that Martin Luther King Jr. ever said any words other than “I have a dream.”

So here is what I’ve come to realize: Before we can have a fruitful “conversation on race,” we need to )irst have education on race. We will not be a well nation or a whole one until we cease to fear and begin to understand this force that has made us who and what we are.

And how dare we reject from that cause any good person who earnestly seeks the same end, even if his solution is as dumb as a slogan on a coffee cup? Yes, I recognize the limitations of good intentions.

But they sure beat the heck out of the other kind.

An abscess of anger seems to gnaw at Hillary Clinton, but the reasons for her resentments remain unclear. The world’s oldest party, which governed the nation during two world wars and is the primary architect of America’s regulatory and redistributive state, is eager to give her its presidential nomination, in recognition of ... what?

The party, adrift in identity politics, clings as shipwrecked sailors do to floating debris, to this odd feminist heroine. Wafted into the upper reaches of American politics by stolid participation in her eventful marriage, her performance in