Media Search:



Europe moves to exclude neighbors from its quantum and space research – Science Magazine

A department overseen by European Union research commissioner Mariya Gabriel wants to safeguard strategic research by barring non-EU researchers.

By Nicholas WallaceMar. 11, 2021 , 4:25 PM

In a sign of growing national tensions over the control of strategic research, the European Commission is trying to block countries outside the European Union from participating in quantum computing and space projects under Horizon Europe, its new research funding program.

The proposed calls, which must still be approved by delegates from the 27 EU member states in the coming weeks, would shut out researchers in countries accustomed to full access to European research programs, including Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Israel. European Economic Area (EEA) countries Norway, Lichtenstein, and Iceland would be barred from space research calls while remaining eligible for quantum computing projects.

Research advocates see the proposed restrictions as self-defeating for all parties, including the European Union. It would be a classic lose-lose, with researchers in all countries having to work harder, and spend more, to make progress in these fields, says Vivienne Stern, director of UK Universities International. The unexpected news has upset some leaders of existing collaborations and left them scrambling to find out whether they will need to exclude partnersor even drop out themselvesif they want their projects to be eligible for further funding. It is really a pity because we have a tight and fruitful relationship with our partners in the U.K., says Sandro Mengali, director of the Italian research nonprofit Consorzio C.R.E.O. and coordinator of an EU-funded project developing heat shields for spacecraft.

In 2018, when the European Commission first announced plans for the 85 billion, 7-year Horizon Europe program, it said it would beopen to the world. Switzerland, Israel, the EEA nations, and other countries have long paid toassociate with EU funding programs like Horizon Europegiving their researchers the right to apply for grants, just like those in EU member states. After leaving the European Union,the United Kingdom struck a dealin December 2020 to join Horizon Europe, which put out its first grant calls last month through the European Research Council.

But more recently,strategic autonomy andtechnological sovereignty have become watchwords among policymakers in Brussels, who argue the European Union should domestically produce components in key technologies, such as quantum computers and space technology. Those views influenced the Commissions research policy department, overseen by EU research commissioner Mariya Gabriel, which drafted the calls and their eligibility rules,first revealed by Science|Business. The draft says the restrictions are necessary tosafeguard the Unions strategic assets, interests, autonomy, or security.

Its a bit of a contradiction, says a Swiss government official who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of forthcoming discussions.You want to open the program to the world and work with the best. But the core group of associated countries with whom youre used to working, suddenly you exclude them and force them to work with the competitors. The official says the Commission gave no warnings the proposal was coming but believes the combination of Brexit and the COVID-19 crisis, in which Europe has struggled to secure access to vaccines, masks, and other equipment, may have further spurred Europe to guard its technologies. Negotiations on Swiss membership in Horizon Europe have not begun, but the country intends to join.

The restrictions affect 170 million in funding that could be available in the next few months. The affected areas include quantum computing, quantum communications, satellite communications, space transport, launchers, andspace technologies for European non-dependence and competitiveness. Projects relating to the Copernicus Earth-observation system and the Galileo satellite navigation programs would remain largely open to associated countries.

Shutting out the associated countries would be alost opportunity and could slow progress in quantum computing, says Lieven Vandersypen, a quantum nanoscientist at the Delft University of Technology.To me, it doesnt make sense. Vandersypen contributes to an EU-funded project that is investigating how to create the basic bits of a quantum computer from cheap and readily available silicon. The project includes U.K. and Swiss researchers at University College London and the University of Basel.They are in there for a good reason, Vandersypen says.They bring in really valuable expertise. With a few years left on the grant, the project isn't in any immediate danger. But the exclusions are bad for long-term planning, Vandersypen says.

Non-EU researchers working on a 150 million European quantum flagship initiative set up in 2018 are also upset by the sudden reversal and wonder about their future status. We discuss with our partners in Europe, they ask us, Can you join?And we dont knowthats probably the worst thing, says Hugo Zbinden, a quantum physicist at the University of Geneva and coordinator of one of these flagship projects, QRANGE, which is investigating how a quantum random number generator can be used to improve encryption.

The restrictions are not yet set in stone; national delegates could reject the draft calls and ask the Commission to open them up. But member states accepted the legal basis for the restrictions last year, when they agreed to the Horizon Europe legislation.Of course, you hope that we will be in, Zbinden says. For the time being, we are waiting for some news.

Continue reading here:
Europe moves to exclude neighbors from its quantum and space research - Science Magazine

Quantum Mechanics, the Chinese Room Experiment and the Limits of Understanding – Scientific American

Like great art, great thought experiments have implications unintended by their creators. Take philosopher John Searles Chinese room experiment. Searle concocted it to convince us that computers dont really think as we do; they manipulate symbols mindlessly, without understanding what they are doing.

Searle meant to make a point about the limits of machine cognition. Recently, however, the Chinese room experiment has goaded me into dwelling on the limits of human cognition. We humans can be pretty mindless too, even when engaged in a pursuit as lofty as quantum physics.

Some background. Searle first proposed the Chinese room experiment in 1980. At the time, artificial intelligence researchers, who have always been prone to mood swings, were cocky. Some claimed that machines would soon pass the Turing test, a means of determining whether a machine thinks.

Computer pioneer Alan Turing proposed in 1950 that questions be fed to a machine and a human. If we cannot distinguish the machines answers from the humans, then we must grant that the machine does indeed think. Thinking, after all, is just the manipulation of symbols, such as numbers or words, toward a certain end.

Some AI enthusiasts insisted that thinking, whether carried out by neurons or transistors, entails conscious understanding. Marvin Minsky espoused this strong AI viewpoint when I interviewed him in 1993. After defining consciousness as a record-keeping system, Minsky asserted that LISP software, which tracks its own computations, is extremely conscious, much more so than humans. When I expressed skepticism, Minsky called me racist.

Back to Searle, who found strong AI annoying and wanted to rebut it. He asks us to imagine a man who doesnt understand Chinese sitting in a room. The room contains a manual that tells the man how to respond to a string of Chinese characters with another string of characters. Someone outside the room slips a sheet of paper with Chinese characters on it under the door. The man finds the right response in the manual, copies it onto a sheet of paper and slips it back under the door.

Unknown to the man, he is replying to a question, like What is your favorite color?, with an appropriate answer, like Blue. In this way, he mimics someone who understands Chinese even though he doesnt know a word. Thats what computers do, too, according to Searle. They process symbols in ways that simulate human thinking, but they are actually mindless automatons.

Searles thought experiment has provoked countless objections. Heres mine. The Chinese room experiment is a splendid case of begging the question (not in the sense of raising a question, which is what most people mean by the phrase nowadays, but in the original sense of circular reasoning). The meta-question posed by the Chinese Room Experiment is this: How do we know whether any entity, biological or non-biological, has a subjective, conscious experience?

When you ask this question, you are bumping into what I call the solipsism problem. No conscious being has direct access to the conscious experience of any other conscious being. I cannot be absolutely sure that you or any other person is conscious, let alone that a jellyfish or smartphone is conscious. I can only make inferences based on the behavior of the person, jellyfish or smartphone.

Now, I assume that most humans, including those of you reading these words, are conscious, as I am. I also suspect that Searle is probably right, and that an intelligent program like Siri only mimics understanding of English. It doesnt feel like anything to be Siri, which manipulates bits mindlessly. Thats my guess, but I cant know for sure, because of the solipsism problem.

Nor can I know what its like to be the man in the Chinese room. He may or may not understand Chinese; he may or may not be conscious. There is no way of knowing, again, because of the solipsism problem. Searles argument assumes that we can know whats going on, or not going on, in the mans mind, and hence, by implication, whats going on or not in a machine. His flawed initial assumption leads to his flawed, question-begging conclusion.

That doesnt mean the Chinese room experiment has no value. Far from it. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy calls it the most widely discussed philosophical argument in cognitive science to appear since the Turing Test. Searles thought experiment continues to pop up in my thoughts. Recently, for example, it nudged me toward a disturbing conclusion about quantum mechanics, which Ive been struggling to learn over the last year or so.

Physicists emphasize that you cannot understand quantum mechanics without understanding its underlying mathematics. You should have, at a minimum, a grounding in logarithms, trigonometry, calculus (differential and integral) and linear algebra. Knowing Fourier transforms wouldnt hurt.

Thats a lot of math, especially for a geezer and former literature major like me. I was thus relieved to discover Q Is for Quantum by physicist Terry Rudolph. He explains superposition, entanglement and other key quantum concepts with a relatively simple mathematical system, which involves arithmetic, a little algebra and lots of diagrams with black and white balls falling into and out of boxes.

Rudolph emphasizes, however, that some math is essential. Trying to grasp quantum mechanics without any math, he says, is like having van Goghs Starry Night described in words to you by someone who has only seen a black and white photograph. One that a dog chewed.

But heres the irony. Mastering the mathematics of quantum mechanics doesnt make it easier to understand and might even make it harder. Rudolph, who teaches quantum mechanics and co-founded a quantum-computer company, says he feels cognitive dissonance when he tries to connect quantum formulas to sensible physical phenomena.

Indeed, some physicists and philosophers worry that physics education focuses too narrowly on formulas and not enough on what they mean. Philosopher Tim Maudlin complains in Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory that most physics textbooks and courses do not present quantum mechanics as a theory, that is, a description of the world; instead, they present it as a recipe, or set of mathematical procedures, for accomplishing certain tasks.

Learning the recipe can help you predict the results of experiments and design microchips, Maudlin acknowledges. But if a physics student happens to be unsatisfied with just learning these mathematical techniques for making predictions and asks instead what the theory claims about the physical world, she or he is likely to be met with a canonical response: Shut up and calculate!

In his book, Maudlin presents several attempts to make sense of quantum mechanics, including the pilot-wave and many-worlds models. His goal is to show that we can translate the Schrdinger equation and other formulas into intelligible accounts of whats happening in, say, the double-slit experiment. But to my mind, Maudlins ruthless examination of the quantum models subverts his intention. Each model seems preposterous in its own way.

Pondering the plight of physicists, Im reminded of an argument advanced by philosopher Daniel Dennett in From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds. Dennett elaborates on his long-standing claim that consciousness is overrated, at least when it comes to doing what we need to do to get through a typical day. We carry out most tasks with little or no conscious attention.

Dennett calls this competence without comprehension. Adding insult to injury, Dennett suggests that we are virtual zombies. When philosophers refer to zombies, they mean not the clumsy, grunting cannibals of The Walking Dead but creatures that walk and talk like sentient humans but lack inner awareness.

When I reviewed Dennetts book, I slammed him for downplaying consciousness and overstating the significance of unconscious cognition. Competence without comprehension may apply to menial tasks like brushing your teeth or driving a car but certainly not to science and other lofty intellectual pursuits. Maybe Dennett is a zombie, but Im not! That, more or less, was my reaction.

But lately Ive been haunted by the ubiquity of competence without comprehension. Quantum physicists, for example, manipulate differential equations and matrices with impressive competenceenough to build quantum computers!but no real understanding of what the math means. If physicists end up like information-processing automatons, what hope is there for the rest of us? After all, our minds are habituation machines, designed to turn even complex taskslike being a parent, husband or teacherinto routines that we perform by rote, with minimal cognitive effort.

The Chinese room experiment serves as a metaphor not only for physics but also for the human condition. Each of us sits alone within the cell of our subjective awareness. Now and then we receive cryptic messages from the outside world. Only dimly comprehending what we are doing, we compose responses, which we slip under the door. In this way, we manage to survive, even though we never really know what the hell is happening.

Further Reading:

Is the Schrdinger Equation True?

Will Artificial Intelligence Ever Live Up to Its Hype?

Can Science Illuminate Our Inner Dark Matter

See original here:
Quantum Mechanics, the Chinese Room Experiment and the Limits of Understanding - Scientific American

After year of reset expectations, D-Wave secures $40-million from Ottawa for quantum computing – The Globe and Mail

D-Wave is the first company to offer a commercially available quantum computer.

Reuters

One of Canadas most heavily financed technology development companies, quantum computer maker D-Wave Systems Inc., has secured a $40-million financial contribution from the federal government.

The funding, through Ottawas Strategic Innovation Fund, follows a year of reset expectations for D-Wave, a leader in the global race to develop computers whose chips draw their power by harnessing natural properties of subatomic particles to perform complex calculations faster than conventional computers.

Burnaby, B.C.-based D-Wave is the first company to offer a commercially available quantum computer, but after 20-plus years of development and more than US$300-million in funds raised, it is still in the early stages of building a sustainable business.

Story continues below advertisement

Last year D-Wave promoted Silicon Valley veteran executive Alan Baratz to chief executive officer, replacing Vern Brownell, to step up commercialization efforts. The company also parted ways with other top executives and long-time board members.

Mr. Baratz, who led Sun Microsystems Inc.s effort in the 1990s to transform Java from a nascent programming language into the internets main software-writing platform, directed D-Wave to stop selling its shed-sized computers, which listed for US$15-million and had just a handful of customers including NASA, Google, Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Instead, D-Wave has focused on selling online access to the technology and expanded its software applications, which Mr. Baratz had started developing after joining as chief product officer in 2017. Customers including Volkswagen and biotechnology startups have used D-Waves technology to find answers to dense optimization problems, such as improving traffic flows in big cities, identifying proteins that could become breakthrough drugs and improving the efficiency of painting operations on vehicle production assembly lines.

D-Wave also completed a costly US$40-million refinancing last year that wiped out most of the value of some long-time investors, including the U.S. Central Intelligence Agencys venture capital arm, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and fund giant Fidelity Investments. The capital restructuring cut D-Waves valuation to less than US$170-million, down from US$450-million, The Globe reported in October. Investors that ponied up, including Public Sector Pension Investment Board, D-Waves top shareholder, BDC Capital and Goldman Sachs, maintained their relative stakes, limiting their writedowns.

Over the years [D-wave has] had to raise money and more money and more money ... and as such you end up getting diluted over time because every third quarter it seems like you run out of the $50-million that you raised, Kevin Rendino, CEO and portfolio manager of D-Wave investor 180 Degree Capital Corp., told his investors last November. D-Wave has been a source of bitter disappointment for all of us.

Meanwhile, D-Wave faces years and tens of millions of dollars more in costs to continue developing its core technology. The government aid will support a $120-million project to advance D-Waves hardware and software and will help place Canada at the forefront of quantum technology development, and will create new jobs and opportunities to help Canadians and advance the economy, Franois-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, said in a release.

During a press conference to discuss the funding, the minister was asked if the government would review potential takeovers of quantum computing companies, as the U.S. government is considering doing. Mr. Champagne provided a non-committal response, saying Im sure you would expect us to be eyes wide open when it comes to whatever we would need to take in terms of steps to protect.[intellectual property] that has been developed in Canada.

Story continues below advertisement

Were always out there looking at how we can improve to make sure that new technologies and inventions and improvements and IP that has been developed in Canada stays in Canada.

D-Wave faces a slew of competitors including Google, Microsoft, Intel, IBM and Honeywell that are also trying to build the first quantum machine that can outperform classical or conventional computers. In addition, a new class of startups including Torontos Xanadu Quantum Technologies Inc. and College Park, Md.-based IonQ Inc. believe they can build quantum chips that dont have to be supercooled to function, as D-Waves system and others in development do. IonQ said this week it would go public through a special purpose acquisition company become the first publicly traded quantum computing-focused company.

Mr. Baratz said in an emailed statement that since D-Waves launch last September of of its latest quantum chip and expanded efforts to sell online access to its computers weve been encouraged by the positive customer response to the value delivered by a quantum system designed for practical, in-production business-scale applications. Were eager to see even more developers, academics, and companies leverage it to solve larger, more complex problems.

Your time is valuable. Have the Top Business Headlines newsletter conveniently delivered to your inbox in the morning or evening. Sign up today.

Read more here:
After year of reset expectations, D-Wave secures $40-million from Ottawa for quantum computing - The Globe and Mail

Can Photonic Computing Solve The Rising Cost & Energy Issues Of AI? – Analytics India Magazine

As per Open AI data, the amount of computational power needed to train large AI models has grown massively doubling every three and a half months since 2021. GPT-3, which requires 3.14E23 FLOPS of computing for training, is a good case in point.

Typically, to carry out high-performance computing tasks, conventional AI chips are equipped with transistors that work with electrons. Although they perform a wide array of complex high performing tasks, energy consumption and engineering glitches pose a challenge. Thus, the growing need for computing power has set researchers on a quest to find a workaround to boost these chips power without increasing energy consumption.

And thats when experts turned to photons and light particles that can easily substitute electrons in AI chips to reduce the heat, leading to a massive reduction in energy consumption and a dramatic upgrade in processor speed.

While electrons perform calculations by reducing the information to a series of 1s and 0s, photonic chips split and mix beams of light within tiny channels to carry out the tasks. Compared to regular AI chips, photonics chips are only designed to perform a certain kind of mathematical calculation, critical for running large AI models.

Lightmatter, an MIT-backed startup, last year developed an AI chip Envise that leverages photons (light particles) to perform computing tasks.

Lights travel faster than electrons. The concept of using light as a substitute for carrying out heavy tasks (aka photonics computing/optical computing) dates back to the 1980s, when Nokia Bell Labs, an American industrial research and scientific development company, tried to develop a light-based processor. However, due to the impracticality of creating a working optical transistor, the concept didnt take off.

We experience optical technology in cameras, CDs, and even in Blue-Ray discs. But these photons are usually converted into electrons to deploy in chips. Four decades later, photonic computing gained momentum when IBM and researchers from the University of Oxford Muenster developed the system that uses light instead of electricity to perform several AI model-based computations.

Alongside, Lightmatters new AI chip has created a buzz in the industry. According to the company website, Envise can run the largest neural networks three times higher inferences/second than the Nvidia DGX-A100, with seven times the inferences/second/Watt on BERT-Base with the SQuAD dataset.

Japan-based NTT company has also been developing an optical computer believed to outpace quantum computing to solve optimisation problems. Last year, Chinese quantum physicist, Chao-Yang Lu, has also announced light-based quantum computing.

Other companies like US-based Honeywell and IonQ have also been working around the issue by using trapped ions.

Such developments have led the experts to believe photonics computing will gain ground once the big tech companies throw their weight behind it and understand the importance of using light for their AI chips.

On the other hand, like any other remarkable technology, photonics computing also comes with certain challenges. Despite its less energy-consumption, photons chips are considered less accurate and precise than electron-based chips. Much of this could be attributed to its analogue-based calculations, making it perfect for running pre-trained models and deep neural networks.

On the designing aspect, silicon-based computer chips dont go well with photo particles that limit their usage in computing.

The cost issues and environmental impact of digital chips might set the stage for photonics computing to rise as a substitute. With startups like Lightmatter and giants like IBM committing resources to this computing paradigm, AI might get a photonic boost.

Visit link:
Can Photonic Computing Solve The Rising Cost & Energy Issues Of AI? - Analytics India Magazine

Opinion | What the Rest of America Can Learn From My Experience Being Black in Trumpland – POLITICO

Kyle finally went to the campus police. They searched the room and found two of the knives but not the largest one. They moved the roommate across campus. They apprised Kyle of his options. They somehow settled on the one that didnt require a police report or formal inquiry before a student-led disciplinary panel, but rather a kind of reconciliation process in which he and his roommate worked it out through talking, better understanding each other. Kyle even helped that now-former roommate move his belongings, shook his hand. Kyle would find out only after I began asking questions to college officials that the roommate was still denying calling him n----- even after that supposed reconciliation.

I was angry that all of that had happened before my wife or I were told a thing. We didnt have the opportunity to guide Kyle through a situation more complex than he understood. I was angry that I wasnt there to kick his roommates teeth in, angry that I was angry Kyle hadnt kicked his roommates teeth in, angry that I had allowed Kyle to see my anger. I was angry that he wasnt safe at a school where we thought he would be.Mine was a conflicted anger. Kyle had thought things through and acted in accordance with the way he had heard me preach a thousand times. To see the full, complex human being, no matter the circumstances. To not allow fear or anger turn into bloodlust or bitterness. To be steadfast even when others would be hotheaded and irrational.

But I was still angry. Because I understand that Kyles reactionto move on, to adjust, to try to forgetis what weve been doing as a Black family in Trumpland for the past four years. And before that, as a Black family during the Barack Obama administration, when our white neighbors worst racist impulses leaked to the surface.

As President Joe Bidens administration works to reverse the damage done by a presidency that stoked division and hate, and as Americans all continue to heal from the January 6 Capitol riot, the whole country is about to go through a version of what Black people in Trumpland have been going through for years. The Justice Department is straining under the weight of the 250-and-climbing cases it is pursuing, but how many of those people there will face no legal sanctions at all? Many will return to their hometowns as teachers and pastors and clerks of courts. A few have returned to my county to more cheers than criticism. Many, many more still support what happened, openly or not. My congressman, Republican Tom Rice, is likely to be punished with a primary next year because he surprisingly voted in favor of impeachment after spending years as a hardcore Trump supporter.

What my family and meand many other Black peoplehave learned during these past 12 years is useful not just for people of color, but for all Americans after the Trump years. Weve learned that the people we once thought of as neighbors and fellow church members would throw away their principles, and the values we all thought we shared, for an ugly brand of politics. And theyd do it even while hoping to preserve a personal relationship with usand it was on us to just swallow our anger and move on.

Our lessons are especially instructive after Americans saw on January 6 just how far some of his supporters would go to ensure that Trump stayed in power, and just how little respect they had for the physical safety of people in the Capitol that day, as well as for our supposedly common project of democracy.

Many of us now understand that though some of our neighbors might be unreachable, we still have to figure out how to build a bridge back to them. We have no choice. They are still our neighbors. Enmity isnt healthy for us, no matter whos at fault.

As the country struggles with how to reach a reconciliation, a coming-together after years of division, I have a warning: It will be about as satisfying as the reconciliation my son had with his former college roommate. A fake handshake or hug; a denial that anything wrong was done anyway; and the victims sustained, head-down commitment to a shared goal of progress, even with so many open wounds and halfhearted reckonings along the way.

***

We noticed the first real changes in the wake of President Barack Obamas victory in 2008. My family and I attended a mostly white evangelical church, and the demeanor of many (but not all) members began to shift once Obama became president-elect. They began viewing me more as a Black man than they ever had before. Black as in he wont humor my racism; Black as in he gets upset and asks us to do better when we accidentally copy him on email chains that include racist memes and stereotypes. That kind of Black.

I wasnt Black in their eyes before Obama was elected, not really. Politically, I still considered myself independent enough to routinely vote for candidates of both parties, and I agreed with them that it was wrong to label the Republican Party racist. I had voted for President George W. Bush and Senator Lindsey Graham and Governor Mark Sanford, and even told one of my white friends they werent irredeemably racist if they had once used the N-word in anger. I believed in redemption then. I believe in it now.

Some of them literally told my wife and me that we werent really Black. We werent on welfare. We got married before we had kids. We had professional careers and standing in the community. Those were Black markers in their minds. It never occurred to them to reconsider, given that we were living, breathing examples that should have challenged their thinking. Though they were too comfortable with racial stereotypes even then, it felt as though they were reachable.

That changed when Obama won. I was baffled by national pundits declaring a post-racial America because a Black man was in the White House. What I saw was white neighbors, friends and colleagues clinging more passionately to their racial identity. Confederate flags, always in abundance, became even more so. It was then that I was radicalized, years before Trump declared his candidacy in 2015 with a speech in which he called Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists.

The 17-year-old Black boy Trayvon Martin was killed in late February of 2012, just as Obamas re-election campaign was beginning. By the time I had heard of the shooting and some guy named George Zimmerman in someplace called Sanford, Floridawhich is geographically in the South but has never felt like the South to memy mind had gone where it usually did when a report of a young Black man being gunned down came across my timeline. Yet another senseless tragedy, I thought, as I grieved for his parents and wanted a full, fair investigation.

I didnt want anyone to lose sight of the real issue, that George Zimmermans arent the biggest threat to young Black men. Young Black men are often killed by young Black men. When youve seen what Ive seen, live where I live, such thinking is cultivated nearly from birth. In my anguishand anger and frustration that I couldnt do more to make things betterI had bought into the cries of Black-on-Black crime, even though I knew most crime was intra-racial, not just among Black people. I watched my Black father beat my Black mother. Before that, my grandfather shot my grandmother. I watched my oldest brother be taken away to prison for committing murder. I sat in courtrooms and took the stand in the defense of my youngest brothers who had been involved in the violent drug trade and were either partially responsible for or involved in the killing of more than one young Black man. A niece lost her mother to bullets intended for my youngest brotherbullets shot from guns wielded by young Black men.

I wanted us to focus on us, to solve the problems we faced, problems that couldnt be fixed by a hyper-focus on white racism, even if that racism was a significant factor in a systemic way.

Martins death was unlikely to change my mind. Id seen too much, had been cut too deeply to be moved by one more Black death. Im ashamed to admit it, but thats where I was: a cynical soul who had lost his passion to keep fighting for racial equality. A helplessness I noticed too late had set in.

His death became bigger in my mind when a significant number of the members of that mostly white Evangelical church I was attending began siding with Zimmerman.

My experience with young Black men and violence had initially convinced me to double down on attempts to humanize everyone, to convince people that you dont have to be a monster to do something monstrous. Their lack of experience with young Black men and violence had led those white Christians to succumb to the worst racial stereotypes. They believed Zimmermans version of events because it rang true to themthat a young, Black thug was trying to kill him for no reason, leaving Zimmerman no recourse but to kill or be killed. They believed Zimmerman had reason to follow Martin and suspect him of committing crimes because crimes are disproportionately committed by young Black men.

It did not matter that all Martin had done was walk home from the store and even tried to avoid a confrontation with Zimmerman. Their belief in that version of events solidified when Obama said if he had a son, that son would look like Trayvon. To them, that meant the nations first Black presidenta man many of them despisedhad taken sides, convincing them to stand in opposition.

There is no doubt in my mind their defense of Zimmerman would have been softer or quieter if their hatred of Obama had been as well. Their racist hatred of the president turned racial matters like the killing Martin into us vs. them, and Trayvon Martin into a political football they could kick around in a culture war. It no longer mattered that I was their friend, their neighbor. The president had defended Black boys like Trayvon, so they had to defend Zimmerman.

I couldnt dissuade them, not even when I asked how they would have reacted had it been their child who was killed. Their kids would have simply answered whatever questions Zimmerman had and made it home safely, they insisted. I asked them how theyd feel if it had been Kyle instead, my Black son who had been raised in their church. Would it have been OK for someone like Zimmerman to have suspected Kyle as a criminal and confronted him that way? I asked. Of course not, they said. They loved Kyle and would grieve with me if anything happened to him. They had given Kyle a pass because they knew us. Their assurances sounded like too-sweet words designed to cover for a much greater sin.

***

I was baptized in that mostly white evangelical Christian church in Conway, South Carolina. I raised my kids there. I stayed for nearly two decades before I could no longer take what I had experienced: not a hatred, not blatant racism, but something worse.

They often invoked the name of Jesus in love, no doubt, even praying for Obama and me when I got sick late in 2013. But the name Jesus was also used to convince me and others like me that it was best to grin and bear racism, to rejoice when we were afflicted, to be calm when we encountered injustice inside the church or elsewhere, to love our neighbors, to prioritize their wants and needs and comfort more than we even loved ourselves. The Confederate flags on the pickups of fellow church members or in their homes? We shouldnt judge them, because we were to never forget that wed all fallen short of the glory of God. And in any case those flags werent about racism but a celebration of heritage that should be respected.

I knew then that though George Zimmermans werent a major threat to young Black men, those who would defend a George Zimmerman were.And then, after the election of Donald Trump, I saw something else. Not only did individual figures like George Zimmerman win the sympathy of my Trump-supporting white neighbors. People like Nick Sandmann and Kyle Rittenhouse became their mascots during the Trump years, a symbol of what united them against the rest of us. The white-conservative embrace of Nick Sandmann and Kyle Rittenhouse further radicalized me; the divide between Trump supporters and what I considered behavior still acceptable enough to maintain close relationships only grew, and I was starting to see no way to close it.

Sandmann, a high school student from Kentucky who was filmed in a much-hyped confrontation with a Native American elder while on a school trip in Washington, D.C. became a cause clbre in 2019 for conservatives who saw themselves as subject to rules written and unfairly enforced by liberals. I take part of their point that initial footage of the confrontation was taken out of context, unfairly suggesting Sandmann was a racist instigator, and that the widespread reaction before all the facts were in was ugly and unwarranted. Still, the massive swell of support from conservative writers and Fox News personalities was difficult for me to understand, too.

When the dust settled, those high school students and their families had somehow become, in my neighbors minds, the ultimate victims of racism in America. Never mind the racial disparities in the criminal legal system, public and higher education and the business world. No matter. Their plight launched a million missives and think pieces about how young white boys were being victimized by cancel culture. Sandmann was given a prominent speaking role at the 2020 Republican National Convention, a celebration of a party whose only platform seemed to be the worship of Trump. On that stage during the convention, Sandmann reveled in his realized power, willingly becoming yet another weapon for white conservative Christians to use in the culture wars.

What happened with Rittenhouse was even more telling. Rittenhouse was a baby-faced 17-year-old white kid the night he allegedly shot three people in Kenosha, Wisconsin, who had been demonstrating against police brutality after the shooting of a Black man. Rittenhouse is charged with killing two of the men. He pleaded not guilty in court, and his supporters claim the killings were in self-defense. According to his supporters, Rittenhouse was a hero, a patriot doing the work law enforcement officials refused to do. Rittenhouse was reestablishing law and order the way Trump had called for.

This was Kyles life being destroyed, actor Ricky Schroeder told The New York Post. This is his freedom at risk. It infuriated me to see an innocent 17-year-old young man being tried and found guilty before trial. Schroeder was so moved he donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Rittenhouses bail and defense.

This has been the reality of America for much of the 21st century: a sense that young white people are becoming the real victims of race and racism.

Thats why I wasnt surprised by what happened January 6, and am not crazy to believe something worse could happen if we dont change course. Because I have spent the past dozen years learning just how wide a gulf exists between me and those on the other side of the Trump divide. Though I knew we didnt share the same set of facts, I was convinced we at least shared the same god. Im no longer sure we do.I saw Trump and Blue Lives Matter flags still flying in my neighborhood months after the election, even after an insurrection that included dozens of former and current police officers. Trump signs still dot sidewalks where I take daily jogs. The Fox News Channel blares in the background when I sit down at my favorite restaurant.

During these years, Ive had to listen to Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich talk about food stamps while Im getting my kids bikes repaired, and tea party pundits disparaging Obama while I wait at the local auto mechanic. After the election, while driving to work, Ive encountered mile-long caravans of Trump supporters. Theres no question many of the people I come in contact with believe the election was stolen from Trump and question the legitimacy of Bidens presidency. I teach not too far from where the North Carolina man who shot up a D.C. pizza parlor to rescue nonexistent child sex slaves in a nonexistent basement once lived. I have taught Trump supporters and sympathizers, and will likely teach them again, and have to be mindful of honoring and respecting them as much as I do every other student I encounter. I will. I must. Because this is their America; Ive learned that over the past 12 years, and everyone learned it on January 6.

But Kyle, and my 16-year-old daughter Lyric, still have the right to demand better, even when standing up for themselves discomforts the white people in their midst. One day, they wont have to just grin and bear it, wont have to submit to a one-sided reconciliation. And Americans across the country can still demandmust demandthat their elected leaders recommit to facts, to fairness, to the democratic process instead of using white grievance to usher in new voter suppression efforts and attempts to shame into silence those who refuse to just give in.

Trump supporters and their sympathizers are right: This is their America. But make no mistake, this is our America, too. We dont have to apologize to anyone for wanting to shape it in our image as much as they want it to remain in theirs. Before January 6, I didnt fully understand the importance of making that clear. I wont forget again. And I wont allow my kids to forget, either.

Continue reading here:
Opinion | What the Rest of America Can Learn From My Experience Being Black in Trumpland - POLITICO