Barking up the wrong tree: Operation Underground Railroad, part 3

I don't know that I really have enough material for another post on them, but a wrapping up feels necessary.

I feel like there should have been an instantaneous rejection of the name.

The Underground Railroad had a specific purpose. It was a conduit to help slaves escape to freedom, run by people who knew slavery was wrong but that the law was not enlightened enough and brave enough to say that. While slavery had seen many forms, the turn it had taken in the United States was that it had been tied specifically to race so that race would get in the way of class unity, and preserve wealth and power for those who already had it.

Yes, I get the analogy; but it is not the place of a white man to ignore racism and appropriate that name for his crusade. 

That is gross. 

It is grosser that Timothy Ballard has written a book alternating his experiences with a Harriet Jacobs -- yeah, a Harriet associated with runaway slaves, but not that one -- where part of the plot is her rebuffing the master's sexual advances. 

So many women were not able to rebuff advances; they were just raped. 

Based on things that come through about the group and Ballard, I can imagine his interest in a desirable woman staying pure and having to get away. 

That would be an oversimplification of Jacobs' story anyway, and I am not going to read the book to find out whether he handles it well or not. Even if he does handle it well -- which I doubt -- there are reasons enough to not support Ballard further.

In a way, the most perfect illustration of what's wrong with Ballard and OUR is that they were featured in a Jon McNaughton painting:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/12/01/controversial-utah-artists-new-painting-pays-tribute-to-contemporary-abolitionists-but-critics-call-it-exploitative-and-culturally-clueless/

Sadly, the people most likely to be devoted to OUR are also the most likely to appreciate McNaughton's work.

I understand the emotional appeal of rescuing children; but so many exploited children are experiencing it in their home, from family members. In so many cases when there is actual trafficking, it is because of poverty and marginalization that leaves some vulnerable and some capable of feeling good about the exploitation. 

There are real issues. They will not be resolved by white male power fantasies. 

Of course Ballard is also the guy that doesn't listen to sex workers and people who were trafficked about their actual needs.

Rejecting the name instantly would have indicated some understanding of the ugliness of the history of the United States on race. Our church has not always done well with that, but I want to see us do better.

It will take listening. It takes listening to Black people, certainly, and because there is more to US history there is also listening to people who came from Asia, and people who came up from the South, and people who were already here when the first explorers and colonists came. That means listening to contemporary accounts and listening to their descendants about the situation now.

It means listening to women and children. That includes teaching them that they have bodily autonomy, and do not need to accept abuse, which some shy away from because then what if they rebel againsts your benevolent attempts to control?

It means listening to gay people because a lot of them have untenable home situations when they are young, and running away or even staying at home with emotional abuse really increases the vulnerability to trafficking.  

I am tempted to say no one elevates old white guys like we do, but I have not given up on those old white guys, and also it is not true; many organizations and traditions elevate old white guys. In that way, we are pretty "of the world", not merely in it.

But I still believe we can do better.

It will require a shift.

Regardless, for those interested in protecting children, there are other options.

https://newframeworks.org/about

Barking up the wrong tree: Operation Underground Railroad, part 2

I was very grateful to find an article that I'd read in September, and then could not find.

 https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/verify/verify-us-marshals-say-some-social-media-claims-about-operation-not-forgotten-are-false/93-bd111cab-189b-4d1a-8864-f19b7b0a6e6a

As far as I know, neither OUR nor the US Marshal service ever said anything about a trailer with 39 kids being rescued. However, announcing that 39 children were rescued under a single operation gave that impression, because of how people think. The reality is more complex, and usually more mundane.

Not only were the children in different locations, and for different reasons, but not all of them were being trafficked. Checking on missing and endangered children can mean locating runaways, finding the other parent in a custody dispute, or taking custody of a child who is being abused by a parent.

In the last post, I went over harm that could be caused by Operation Underground Railroad (and the newer groups that are copying them) but I don't think that harm is intentional or even understood. Instead it comes from a desire to do good that is not disciplined enough to understand good.

The best example of that may be how OUR uses the story of Liliana.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7a3qw/a-famed-anti-sex-trafficking-group-has-a-problem-with-the-truth

You have to scroll down a bit, but her story illustrates a more common reality of trafficking, and is worthwhile for that. 

It is also telling how OUR misrepresents her story. I don't just mean that they take unearned credit for it; I am sure they think their work makes them responsible for the greater efforts. (I am sure they are the reason for some of the copycat orgs, so if those were doing any good, OUR could take some credit for that).

I think it's more interesting that they make her younger and less involved in her own choices, both the choice to go with her exploiter, and to escape. There is some chauvinism in there, which comes up with other responses when other sex workers or people previously trafficked question OUR, 

But also really interesting is how Tim Ballard told this story as a way of selling the need for a border wall, because then they would have had to come in through a checkpoint, and then customs agents would have rescued her.

This ignores tunnels and using smuggling techniques to get people through checkpoints and also planes and ladders and shipping containers (as well as shoddily made wall sections falling down and people taking wall donations to enrich themselves, but that's another story).

It also ignores the many stories of ICE agents raping and molesting, and other patterns of law enforcement as a whole.

If you have an agenda, it is easier to ignore evidence against and accept evidence in favor. That goes back to last week's post. It can be so easy to believe garbage that you like.

The funny thing was that in doing some research I found a link on the OUR site about them not supporting conspiracy theories. 

https://ourrescue.org/blog/dont-be-fooled-help-the-cause-of-protecting-children-fighting-human-trafficking-by-getting-educated-staying-informed-with-facts-not-falsehoods/

What it fails to do is acknowledge the boost OUR gets from QAnon:

https://newrepublic.com/article/158974/qanon-operation-underground-railroad-sex-trafficking

There was not a firm denial of the Wayfair rumors, or naming of false sources or anything specific and helpful about not getting caught up in lies. After all, OUR's followers are good and smart people who would not burst into a pizza parlor with a gun, and they don't really believe that Democrat leaders drink the blood of children in strange sex rites for eternal youth or power or anything like that, though they sure don't care about children as much as Republicans, right?

I mean, if it is practically an article of your faith that Democrats are bad and that being righteous specifically requires you to vote Republican, that doesn't mean that you would fall for old lies in new times, does it?

I will now take this moment to tell you that some (because they have MANY) of the conspiracy theories that QAnon pushes stem from the 1980s "Satanic Panic" where concerns about women working and putting children in daycare were turned into elaborate fantasies about ritual abuse of children. A key component of conservatism is resisting change.

In addition, aspects of that could be traced to anti-Semitic stories of blood libel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

That doesn't mean that no child has ever been molested in day care, even though it is not the norm. When it does happen, there are usually no chants and pentagrams and Satanic trappings. 

Lies don't help us protect children.

That sounds logical, right?

So the question becomes one of whether we are taking in good information, or whether our pre-existing biases might make us more vulnerable to deception.

You really need to see this photo.

https://twitter.com/dappergander/status/1369378995846971396/photo/1

It's something to think about.

Barking up the wrong tree: Operation Underground Railroad, part 1

I do not believe I am done writing about fighting white supremacy. However, for these "barking up the wrong tree" posts, the relevant people are unlikely to believe they are focusing on fighting white supremacy. 

They are still not recognizing the ways in which they are upholding white supremacy; this is a good faith effort to explore that.

I had thought that as surely as you can tell that white liberals are not really listening to Black women by how much they love Shaun King, you can tell how much Mormons are missing the point on all efforts toward equality by how much they support Operation Underground Railroad. 

That was before I found out that firesides supporting OUR were a big thing in Utah. I am going to concede that there is some Utahn uniqueness in devotion to OUR, which -- oddly -- does not make me feel better. I am going to try and make it all make sense.

I have too much content to fit into one week. That bugs me, but I'll deal with it.

First off, I have a lengthy article from Vice:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvxev5/inside-a-massive-anti-trafficking-charitys-blundering-overseas-missions

I understand if you don't want to read the whole thing. I also understand if you are concerned about the number of sources unwilling to go on record. I am going to pull out some things that I find interesting and important.

Let's start with that mission where they were in the village with a real medical team based on a tip from a psychic, because this gets us to two specific kinds of harm.

First of all, as the OUR members who were using the team as cover started ramping up their search, it caused some turmoil. They tried to cover by saying there was a virus and they were investigating the source of the virus. This ultimately made things worse, until the villagers asked the medical team to leave and followed them out of the village to make sure they left.

This is a good time to remember that massive vaccination efforts are needed to control a global pandemic. Yes, Utah had some issues with taking the virus seriously, but as more vaccines are given the rate of new infections is declining, so let's try and give it the benefit of the doubt.

Now let's consider this other article:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150225-polio-pakistan-vaccination-virus-health 

That is probably not the only reason that there is vaccine hesitance in Pakistan, but the mistrust doesn't help. Was finding bin Laden worth it? Maybe, but OUR did not find Gardy, the child they were looking for, which brings us to the source of their tip, a psychic.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2021/03/11/texas-rangers-stop-using-hypnosis-after-dallas-morning-news-investigation-reveals-dubious-science/

Please notice that even the sources that OUR uses to defend using psychics are skeptical about using psychics. Perhaps the justification goes like, Yes, this article does say that it doesn't work, but it still points out that it has been done, so clearly it's a thing. 

In the article about Texas use, hypnosis has occasionally sent people to death row. Now, think about hypnosis for entertainment, and how it is used more for relaxing of inhibitions and persuasion. Then think about coercive interrogation techniques. It doesn't even have to be malice on the part of law enforcement; it can just be a strong desire to get things resolved. 

Bad information isn't going to do it. If you truly want to do good, you have to be more critical in your analysis of how to do it. Whether the motivation behind chasing down outlandish ideas is wishful thinking or desperation or a lack of caring, it still puts you in a position to do harm.

Also a potential way of causing harm? Asking for younger girls and thereby creating demand. OUR denies the possibility of what they ask and how they ask it leading to greater demand, but the points the article makes align with other information about sex trafficking. That leads to another thing that is kind of uncomfortable...

If they were looking for young boys -- especially in Thailand -- they might very well find some, but for sex trafficking they seem to focus on girls. The part about the reminders that...

“we're all red-blooded American males. We're visual creatures. So if at any time you may feel tempted to do something with one of the women, you need to tell us so we can get you out of there. Many men have come before and told me they feel tempted, and I respect them so much for it.”

That sounds creepy. These may not be the best people to be conducting rescues. 

There is this weird kind of macho masochism where some types of men will weave elaborate fantasies about their women being raped and murdered, so they need to avenge them (and once with that legislator with an elaborate rape fantasy of when an abortion might be justifiable). These are the kind of men, like Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson, who idealize young girls, before they get all corrupted and independent. 

I prefer DesignMom's take on protecting your families:

https://designmom.com/lets-talk-about-protecting-our-families/

One thing she gets at is the contrast between realistic, daily needs, and the dramatic, heroic needs of movie plots that are unlikely to ever come up with you. It is not a coincidence that their focus is on the minority of child exploitation, rather than the issues the the majority of endangered children face.

OUR lets dentists and finance guys feel like John McClain, but it is just as fictional. Ultimately, the disconnect with reality is probably the most harmful thing.

More on that next time.

Fighting white supremacy: news and information

As you are making decisions about your part in fighting white supremacy, one common (but certainly not exclusive) failing among church members is backing the wrong horse. This is so prevalent I am going to spend two posts on different examples, but first we talk about input and attitude.

Last week I read an opinion piece in The Oregonian that likened seniors' attempts to get vaccination appointments to The Hunger Games. I am not going to link to it due to paywall issues, but I can point out three problems with it.

The complaint was centered around age-based eligibility for seniors being lowered from 80 to 65, even though not everyone over 80 had gotten it yet. It made other complaints about state processes, including seniors often wading through a web site and then not getting an appointment.

This is a thing that happens. It also happens to people in the other groups, like first responders and teachers, many of whom are younger and more tech-savvy. In many cases, it happens because there is a flood of demand, and when a new opportunity goes out, the appointments fill up quickly.

The editorial even admitted toward the end that the biggest issue with the vaccine rollout was supply, which is coming closer to a solution, but has not been something that Kate Brown could change on her own. Despite that admission, the overall impression of the article was that seniors were being ill-served by the governor's incompetence.

Without arguing that there is no room for improvement in distribution, the opinion piece missed some points.

I am sure that it is true that seniors are more likely to run into issues with scheduling apps and transportation to vaccination events. I do not believe that is a reason to wait on expanding eligibility. 

One reason -- not dealt with in the article -- was that there is racial bias in life expectancy. Many Black and brown people never make it to 80. Technically, based on 2014 CDC data, white life expectancy is 79.4, but they have a good 4 years on African Americans and Native Americans. Lowering the age to 65 makes the vaccine available to a more racially diverse population. Since the data has been very clear that the risk of COVID-19 infection and death is disproportionately borne by people of color, this is an important expansion. 

(Solving medical and health inequality is also important; but that will take longer.)

https://www.thebalance.com/the-racial-life-expectancy-gap-in-the-u-s-4588898

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/expert-answers/coronavirus-infection-by-race/faq-20488802 

Remember, while the elderly -- at least those over 80 -- were prioritized, they were not the only priority. My 78-year old mother has been vaccinated because she is in a senior care facility, and given the potential risk, those facilities were prioritized. With all of the residents being easily accessible, that went very smoothly, even though many of the residents would have struggled with the technology.

One recent development is that some clinics will also take the adult family members living in the same household of other eligible people, like teachers or health care workers. This may be a great way to get those seniors who are living with family to vaccination events; by opening it up to the family members they are living with. That won't help with seniors who live alone, but as different methods prove more effective, let's learn from that and expand. It really will save lives.

The opinion piece did not mention that some of those slots being missed by seniors over the age of 80 were being taken by teachers and rescuers, and people whose jobs put them at risk. I personally might prioritize retail and restaurant workers over seniors. Would that be the right choice? I am not positive. 

There is room for disagreement. My initial response to schools opening up this year (rather than just waiting until fall) was to disagree. However, I know a parent with a student who has started hybrid school, and he says it has been good for the students. Well, I am not a parent, maybe I don't know.

There has to be a willingness to admit when you don't know, but there should also be a desire to know.

I admit it is hard. There is a lot of information to sort through, and it is astonishing what some people believe now. Like a lot of people after getting their shots are making jokes about wanting to buy Microsoft. They think that's a joke, but there are people who believe it.

There are things that can help with media literacy. It is no longer safe to assume that media will report factually and clearly, because if they get more readers through Hunger Games analogies, they may not resist that temptation. 

Going with the examples in this piece, it is a hard but necessary lesson that based on our history, most things are not racially neutral, so the impact of race must be considered for any fairness, but then many people will tell you that acknowledging that is the real racism. Do you do the right thing or the easy thing?

(Or the super wrong thing of banning critical race theory education in order to move us backward.)

However, beyond merely sorting the information that you have available, there is also a question of intention. This is why I mention attitude, as well as input. 

The opinion piece in question only considered the needs of people over the age of 80, and with that narrow view it was easy to decide efforts were insufficient. There are other needs. 

This is not merely about acknowledging that there are difficult choices to make. There is a common tendency to take an adversarial approach to news, where if it is against your person it is definitely bad, and there is always a reason to think bad of most of them. 

I notice this bias more against Democrats, partly because I am one, but also because it comes from both the conservative side and also the side that is so "progressive" or "leftist" that to merely say "liberal" would be an insult.

I don't personally care if you like Democrats or affiliate, but I do care about things getting better. I care about the pandemic getting under control. I care about people having enough food and resources to survive, and do better than survival. 

I have literally seen people root for the Democrats to insist on the minimum wage inclusion because then the stimulus would fail and that would clear the way for those Democrats to be replaced by Progressives. That could happen, but being replaced by Republicans seems more likely. If you don't believe everything got worse after Trump was elected with having McConnell in power already being bad enough... that's a much longer discussion; I don't have time for that here.

My focus is that we need to want good things for people. There is plenty of room for disagreement about the best way to accomplish good, but that should never turn into wanting suffering or celebrating suffering because it scores a point.

It is more important to do right than to be right. 

And when you accept that, then you probably do write opinion pieces differently, and more respectfully.

I want to be clear: I am not saying that you can't point out a problem if you don't have a solution; sometimes talking about the problem is how we get the solution.

But there is still room for understanding when a decision might be hard, or if a bigger fault might not be a former chief executive not ordering more vaccines when he had the chance, or taking any action whatsoever to save lives. No, it doesn't help now, except that if we get into the habit of accurately assessing where we went wrong and what would be right, that might be the sort of thing that helps us make it through this mess.