Taking out Race as a fact in unintentional modeling

If I would like to coach myself (or be coached) on a fact that relates directly to race, or said differently, if I would like to work through, what the material might call an unintentional model to tease out my thoughts that arise from a factual incident that includes race (such as the recent fact event that A white cop kneed a Black man to the point of suffocation and murder), Wouldn’t taking out race undermine the very thought work that I would like to do regarding my unintentional thoughts. For example, if I want to tease out the meaning that I give to that fact (which your school teaches is neutral, which I will accept as true for the point I wish to make here and that I actually think I may believe as true), how could I ever tease out and really engage my thoughts on this/my unintentional model, if race is taken out. I might find it repulsive, be filled with righteous indignation, feel powerless, frozen, all of those things…all thoughts and feelings that I may have related to this fact event that included race elements. And I recognize fully that someone else might have a totally different view/thought/unintentional model on the fact that a White cop kneed a Black cop to his suffocating death. That other person may say, I don’t see race, or why does race matter, or he deserved it, or no police should do that to anyone so why should race matter because all lives matter—all of those things might be their thoughts on this fact that a white cop did this to a Black man. I can see how because different people can interpret a fact differently that that may be the reason for the teaching by Brooke that the fact is neutral.

If however race is taken out to “a man killed a man”…To me, I am at that point working through a totally different model—a totally different set of facts—which will likely mean that I am interrogating a different set of thoughts that come up from that reframed C because the facts are different with the fact of race having been taken out when what I wanted to do is to extrapolate my thoughts on race as it relates to this particular incident because race was a fact present in the situation. Or alternatively, if the C read, “a cop kneed a person to his suffocating death” my unintentional model is wrestling with a totally different set of thoughts that come up, perhaps some thoughts that might arise might arise more generally to police conduct. That unintentional model with these facts, excluding race, and the thoughts (conscious or subconscious) related to them do not help me interrogate my thoughts/feelings on the presence of race as a fact of the situation.

Coaching myself (or being coached this way) essentially hides race and in doing so hides my thoughts on race in this matter and redirects them to something else (a different set of facts).

Only thing I can figure now (but am seeking guidance -again) in coaching myself this way (or being coached this way) in taking out race is to help to diffuse the intensity of feelings that I might have in connection with the presence of the race fact in the C line so that I can actually SEE and walk back my thoughts and feelings I may have, such as blinding rage as a Black person or shame and guilt if I were White.

At some point though, I would think again I would need to get back to the original unintentional model that was my goal from the beginning of exploring my thoughts/feelings (as a Black person, which I am or a White person, if I were) related to an event that had factual race elements in it, again, like the death of Floyd.

To switch to a different fact and not returning to race, has me working through a model or models that aren’t the one that I wanted/needed to work through where race is a fact that is present. If I wanted to explore how I feel about police generally…taking out race might work…or if I wanted to get to a point of seeing all people equal (if I didn’t for example), wouldn’t I still have to return to a C line that includes race to again interrogate all of my feelings related to an event that included race. My unintentional model on race is side stepped if I redirect myself (or am redirected and not directed back to the presence of race as a fact and my thoughts about it).

It should show (if the burning cities alone do not) how I am trying to reckon with this event that has facts that relate to race (and reckon with other people’s possible thoughts on those same facts relating to race). As a scholar and at this point a Diamond -Brooke’s work isn’t new to me per se, notwithstanding this search for clarity.


Thank you.