Survivor: Holding the Mirror Up to Racism and How a Country Needs to Heal the Wounds of Slavery

I have been watching Survivor since the first season finale. I still remember when Richard Hatch (private parts blurred) walked around naked to intimidate the other players prior to the final vote. In Season 2, I remember that Jerri Manthey set-up and lied about an Army Intelligence officer (Kel Gleason, Native American and Hispanic) to get him voted out early. In the spring of 2005, while I was serving in Iraq, I caught a finale by chance on a television in an MWR room on Victory Base; a little slice of home! I have seen nearly every episode of nearly every season since. The game has always shown how people form alliances and justify their choices when a million dollars is on the line. I am fascinated by human behavioral psychology, and Survivor and Jeff Probst never let me down. Lately, in Season 51, it has held up a clear mirror to how our society talks about race—and how that talk often ignores the actual history that ended slavery in America.

In Season 51, black players formed the Helicopter Alliance. One of them, Jelly, said it was created “to make sure black people did well in the game.” After a tribe swap, they used that bond to vote out a white player. An X post by Michael Keith put the reaction many fans had into words: Another season of black players doing it ‘for the culture’. If white people ever mentioned voting based on color, they would be ridiculed and labeled. But on Survivor it’s OK to be racists as long as you’re not white.

I replied because the pattern feels familiar and wrong. “It is phenomenally disappointing in an otherwise GOATed game,” I wrote. “These are not bad people, but they reflect their upbringing. Why does it seem, over and over again that the racism in America is rooted in the black psyche?” I also pointed out the double standard: if white players had openly worked to eliminate others based on race, it would have been a scandal. Other comments in the thread called race-based alliances boring and predictable, claimed white people do the same thing quietly, or argued that history makes the word “racism” unfair here.

Now we are faced with a situation where if the truth comes out about the alliance and it’s purpose, would the non-black players be considered racist for trying to break it up and vote out the black players because they are in a black alliance?

This is not the first time identity has shaped the game. In Season 41, Black players formed an open alliance after the merge and spoke at Tribal Council about representing their community “for the culture.” Earlier seasons saw strong women’s alliances, and Season 13 even began with tribes divided by race. A study of the first forty seasons found that women and players of color were more likely to be voted out early. Players will always look for any edge—shared age, region, strength, or race. The problem is the uneven rule: one version of racial voting is often treated as representation, while the reverse would be condemned.

I grew up in an integrated neighborhood in Southern California and in a mixed, blended family. I was taught to judge people by their character, not the color of their skin. That idea still makes the most sense to me. The same principle applies when we talk about the past. Society often discusses slavery and reparations as if the institution ended only yesterday, and as if the only people who suffered or sacrificed were the enslaved. That leaves out a large part of the story.

My great-great-grandfather’s 1863 Civil War diary, serialized by my mother in 1963 in a yearlong series of recounted, transcribed entries, and now in a book called “The Centum Diary,” he mentions the Contraband Camp in Corinth, Mississippi, where he was stationed for much of that year. After Union forces took the area, thousands of freed slaves gathered there. The camp grew into a small town with houses, a church, a school, a hospital, and farms where the residents worked for wages. Men from the camp later joined the Union Army as the 1st Alabama Infantry of African Descent. It was one of the places where freedom began to take shape under Union protection.

Roughly 360,000 white male and about 37,000 black male Union soldiers died in the Civil War, what I call the War to End Slavery. Those men—white and Black—fought to end the slavery. I also have a distant cousin, General Gordon Granger, who on June 19, 1865, in Galveston, Texas, issued General Order No. 3. He told the people of Texas that, under the Emancipation Proclamation, “all slaves are free.” That announcement is the origin of Juneteenth.

If the country is going to talk seriously about reparations, it should at least acknowledge who bore the battle. The soldiers who fought and died to end slavery paid a price that cannot be measured in money. Ignoring that sacrifice while treating race-based alliances on a reality show as progress does not help us move forward. Survivor reflects the culture that produces it. It’s fascinating that after all this time; young blacks still revert to racist ideas to survive a society that long ago saw them as people and valuable members of society. Yes, through trials and tribulations, but surely, we are ready to move on.

The mirror is being held up again. Looking at both the game and the fuller history—without looking away—lets us see where double standards and incomplete stories come from. Judging individuals by their character, and remembering who ended slavery, remains a better standard than sorting people by the color of their skin.

Immigration: WWJD?

“What would Jesus do?” is a fine question until someone applies it to a national border the way a bumper sticker applies it to a traffic jam. Suddenly the options shrink to “open the gates and hand out the snacks” or “you’re not a real Christian.” Most of us have stood in that checkout line long enough to know the answer is usually neither. Jesus, as the record shows, was remarkably specific about both mercy and limits. He also had a habit of answering a loaded question with a better one.

“So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.” – John 2:15 (NIV)

Start with the part everyone quotes. The Good Samaritan (Luke 10) is not a parable about immigration policy; it is a story about a man who stops for a stranger (not a criminal, illegal alien) bleeding in a ditch when the respectable people walk past. The command to love the sojourner in Leviticus 19 is equally direct: do not oppress the (legal) stranger, treat him fairly, remember that you could be a stranger in a strange land, too. Do unto others, Golden Rule, etc. These are not suggestions. A Christian who has never helped a person in genuine need is missing something essential. That part is not complicated.

“But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.” Luke 10 (KJV)

The rest of the book, however, refuses to stop at the bumper sticker. Matthew 7:6 offers a practical warning that still surprises people who only read the first half of the chapter: do not give what is precious (The Word of God) to those who will trample it and then turn on you. The Gospels, ordered liberty, and the basic expectation that women are not property are precious. Handing them over without regard to whether the recipient intends to keep them is not hospitality; it is poor stewardship. Acts 17 notes that God set boundaries for nations. Biblical Israel had gates. The lawful sojourner received protection and equal justice under the law, yet he also lived under that law. Unlimited claim on generosity and entitlement was not part of the deal.

“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” – Matthew 7:6 (NIV)

Then there is the blunt instruction in 2 Thessalonians 3: “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” It is difficult to turn that into a slogan. It is also difficult to pretend it does not apply once someone has legally crossed a border. Compassion systematically subsidizes idleness or the refusal of basic norms eventually running out of other people’s money and patience, earned from industry not idleness. Societies that discover this the hard way tend to become less, not more, able to help the people who need it.

“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10 (KJV)

The modern pressure to treat every arrival as an automatic neighbor, entitled to indefinite residence and benefits they didn’t earn or pay for, often skips these distinctions. Irregular flows that are heavily weighted toward young men from places with very different rules about women, authority, and violence have produced measurable costs in several countries—higher rates of certain crimes, slower employment, and neighborhoods that function more like parallel societies than extensions of the host. Formal programs that prioritize families and the vulnerable have different records. The data are not a secret; they are simply inconvenient for the slogan. Pointing them out does not require cruelty. It requires noticing that resources and social trust are not infinite, and that self-preservation is the condition for any long-term generosity, understanding or tolerance.

“He said to the crowd: “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going to rain,’ and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time?” – Luke 12:54-56 (NIV)

A reasonable reading of “What would Jesus do?” therefore includes both the man in the ditch and the pearls. It includes the sojourner and the gate. It includes the call to repent and the recognition that not everyone who arrives has accepted that call. Justice and compassion meet under law, not in the space where law is treated as an obstacle to good feelings. Christians can (and should) show personal mercy without demanding that their political community pretend cultural distance, demographic reality, and the duty to work do not exist. Those who insist the only Christian answer is unlimited acceptance are asking the question in a way that already contains their preferred reply. The fuller record is less convenient and more durable.

“From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.” Acts 17:26 (NIV)

We are, in the end, on a mission from God. The mission includes the wounded stranger. It also includes not handing the mission over to people who intend to rewrite the instructions once they are inside. Both parts can be true at once. The trick is refusing the demand to choose only one.