This post is dedicated to the lasting memory of the greatest educator I've ever known...Mr. Edward Markowski aka Mr. M (6.30.1944-4.30.2015)...your legacy lives on in the souls of every student that had the opportunity to sit in your class...
Ever since the tragic death of Trayvon Martin, we've been dealing with the fine line between peaceful protesting and rioting when expressing various views on the deaths of unarmed Black men by the hands of overzealous citizens and police officers abusing their authority. The latest debate circles what has been the most serious to date; the protests and subsequent riots that broke out in Baltimore, Maryland regarding the death of 25 year old Freddie Gray. Details have finally been revealed that Gray's injuries, which included an almost severed spinal cord, were most likely sustained during transport in a police van after his somewhat questionable arrest. According to reports, Gray was handcuffed and had his feet shackled but was not secured by seatbelt in the van. It has been said that Gray's pleas for assistance were ignored by the police officers that took him into custody and that once it was noticed Gray was unresponsive, the officers didn't act to get him quick and proper medical attention. Gray died from his injuries a week after his arrest.
Once again, protesters took to the streets. There were "violent" confrontations with police, several businesses were looted and/ or damaged, some by fire. Police vehicles were torched. Two days of scheduled baseball games were cancelled and eventually played in an empty Camden Yards stadium. A Black mother was caught on video angrily removing her Black teenage son from the group of rioters and later labeled as a 'hero mom' for doing so. There were reports of gangs facing off with police, the rioters were repeatedly referred to as 'thugs' and some protesters threw rocks and bricks at police. It was labeled as 'disgraceful', marring the actions of those who had aimed to protest peacefully.
But in just under a week Baltimore's chief prosecutor, Marilyn Mosbey, charged six police officers(three black and three white) with a number of crimes ranging from manslaughter and murder to unlawful imprisonment. Police union representatives say that Mosley's action were an "egregious rush to judgment", politically motivated by ties she has with the Gray family's lawyer and her husband, Baltimore City Councilman Nick Mosby. Supporters say swift action was needed to show Baltimore residents and citizens around the country that the issues regarding police brutality is being taken seriously. Above all else, it brought an end to the destructive riots that raged through Baltimore on Saturday and then again on Monday.
Which brings me to my point. Personally, I don't condone the actions of those who choose to riot in the face of injustice. I feel it's counterproductive to the cause because businesses and sometimes homes in the affected areas often end up damaged, some beyond repair. These are the same businesses and homes that those in the affected community live in and spend their money in. But it seems like this extreme response initially is most effective at getting some sort of results. This isn't to say that these officers will in fact answer for their crimes, but the justice system will play a role in that aspect. We won't have another case like the Michael Brown/ Darren Wilson case out in Ferguson or like the Eric Garner case in Staten Island, NY. These officers will face charges based on their actions. That is a start.
The problems lies much deeper. In 1992, Los Angeles exploded when "race riots" broke out in response to the acquittal of four officers involved in the brutal beating of Rodney King. Just over 22 years later, we have dealt with multiple cases of police brutality over a very short period of time and the response in Baltimore echoes those we saw in LA in the early 90's. A lot of the blame is being placed on the citizens of Baltimore for their reaction but when we look around the world and we see citizens of other countries protesting and rioting against oppressive governments, policies and institutions, we applaud them because they are doing so in a fight for their "freedom". In the United States, the "land of the free", citizens are denigrated when they protest against things that occur in our democratic society. When it turns "violent", and the protesters are minorities or they are supporting a minority victim or a cause that affects minorities, emphasis is placed on "the thugs" and the ignorance of those involved. The victim's existent or non-existent criminal past is often used to discredit them, trying to give just cause to why the officers involved acted as they did. When the details emerged in the Gray case, it became clear that the officers actions of not securing Freddie Gray via seatbelt in the police van was deliberate, in order to give him a 'rough ride', as it were. This is an indication that these officers, and probably the department as a whole, often use such tactics when they feel they need to send 'a message' to individuals in custody. Freddie Gray's arrest, itself, was suspect. It's safe to say that they were just going to rough Gray up and put him back out on the street so he could go back and tell those he associated with his experience (if you ever watched 'The Wire', a show that was broadcast on HBO from 2002-2008 and was based on some experiences of a former Baltimore homicide detective, Edward Burns, and a police reporter from the Baltimore Sun, creator David Simon, you saw this tactic being employed often). Unfortunately for the officers, they went way too far.
I say 'unfortunately', because police officers everywhere, but especially in high crime areas like Baltimore, have a very tough job. Areas densely populated by low income groups tend to have very high crime rates. Usually these areas are populated by Black and Hispanic individuals. Police officers and city officials in these areas have to be creative in ways to suppress crime and sometimes they have to come up with different ways to combat it. Some ways are unorthodox and they get results. But when those ways start to infringe on the civil rights of citizens, even some who may be involved in criminal activity, a line has to be drawn. It has to be drawn! Freddie Gray was said to have been carrying a switchblade and that's why he was approached and subsequently arrested. But according to the reports that Mrs. Mosby received, the knife in question was not a switchblade, therefore legal for Gray to have on him. Everything that has been reported to have occurred afterward was excessive and suspect. Police officers are charged and paid to uphold the law, plain and simple. Just like the criminals they are charged to protect their respective communities from, police officers have to follow the law as well, to a higher degree in some cases. They are held to a much higher standard, or should be at least. When they are not, the onus should not be on the public to respectfully voice their outrage, especially when this is becoming more and more commonplace in minority communities. It was a problem before the LA riots in 1992 and it is still a problem today. The riots then did nothing to quell the number of cases where police overstep their boundaries as peace keepers and the riots in Baltimore may do nothing now, again, 22 years later. But they made somewhat of a difference this past Friday, in that charges were brought swiftly to the officers involved. Now we wait to see if it was all worth it or if history will, again, repeat itself.
For in-depth discussions on race and racial issues, visit the Speaking Dow Barriers facebook page here: Speaking Down Barriers: Race Related Conversations. I encourage you wholeheartedly to attend if you are able to.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Mincing Words: Why Fear Through Words is Just as Bad as Terrorism
We live in a time where everyone's opinion is out in front for all of us to see and hear. It isn't hard to find a news report or a group of people that can support any opinion that you may have. Still believe that president Obama isn't an American citizen? It would only take a few seconds for you to find a host of websites supporting that ridiculous line of thinking. Do you feel like racism doesn't exist? You could probably throw a balled up piece of copy paper in your office right now in any direction and hit someone who'd agree with you. And while opinions, in a lot of cases, are neither right nor wrong, sometimes they lean a little more to either end of the spectrum to support an opposite way of thinking.
Case in point: A lot has been made, said and written about the president's choice of words when it comes to terrorism. We can go back to the Benghazi incident and see that this is a running theme with Republicans and other Obama detractors. It is their opinion that by Obama "failing" to classify certain incidents as "terrorist acts" that it takes away from the seriousness of these incidents. The Charlie Hebdo incident was another case in which Obama was lambasted for initially not saying that the attack in France was a "terrorist attack". And as of late, Obama has chosen to not classify ISIS (or ISIL) as "radical Islamists", instead opting to refer to them as "violent extremists". Some politicians and critics have said his choice of words, or lack thereof, shows his inability to lead this country. Others have said it shows his unwillingness to take a hardline stance on Islamic terrorism. Obama has said that in not calling ISIS radical Islamists or Islamist terrorists, it separates them from the whole of the Islamic faith, therefore not giving the impression that all Muslims are terrorists and that Islam is a violent religion. He has said that his objectives in combating ISIS is "not a war against Islam" but a war against the extremists who claim to be doing the work of Allah. While one may not agree with whatever strategies that Obama intends to lay out, logically one can or should agree that Obama has the right idea in mind in not wanting to make this about a war against a particular religion. If that was the case, then we'd have a terrible situation that could be likened to the Holocaust. But no one on the political right seems to see the wisdom in Obama's choice of words.
Here is why I personally believe that the terminology one chooses to use is trivial when compared to the ideals those words may represent. Take the example of a person who commits a crime. There are a number of crimes on could commit, and the penalties vary depending on the crime. But if the crime can be proven to have been committed by the individual, then it doesn't matter if you acknowledge the person as a killer, burglar, rapist, etc.. That person committed said crime and the only distinction any of those labels will hold is the type of punishment the crime comes with. If a person or group of people commit "acts of terror" which by definition is an act causing "extreme fear to coerce people" or "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear", not labeling them as "terrorists" doesn't somehow dispel what they are actually doing, nor does labeling them as such improve ones chances at stopping them. It's all just terminology, which is used to instill a certain image or attitude in others so as to persuade them to follow a certain ideal. If you put a face on terror (like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein), then you put fear in those who associate those individuals with things like 9/11 or suicide bombers. But today's "terrorists" are "faceless", in that many currently are operating as individuals or small groups. The Al-Queda's and ISIS' are now more of an ideology these days. Individuals or "lone wolfs" as they are being called, are following these ideals and committing acts on their own. Whether you call them terrorists, Islamic radicals or violent extremists or not, their acts speak for themselves. What you call them doesn't matter, it's how they are stopped that's more important anyway.
But critics of the president say terminology and solutions go hand in hand when it comes to the new war on terror. I say, it's political branding. You have to put a name on something that you want to sell to the American public, on either side of the aisle. Healthcare reform was branded "Obamacare" so that those who didn't agree with Obama's political agenda would instantly cringe whenever they heard that term and automatically view it as "un-American" or unconstitutional. Politically, that was a great strategy. Republicans branded Obama as a socialist due to the fact that the word carries a negative connotation. But the true definition of socialism is a series of ideologies aimed at providing opportunities for every individual to maximize their potential, therefore giving every citizen an equal chance at prosperity. Or, at least that's what it is in theory. Socialism used to be linked to communism, especially during the Cold War era and the Soviet Union regime years. Nowadays, it's linked to the ideals of an American president who is thought to be everything from the worst president ever to the anti-Christ. And let's not forget, he just happens to not be white. There is currently a US Senator named Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who identifies himself as a "democratic socialist" and has been serving since 2007. Before today I had never heard of him. Maybe you have, or not.
Here's another example of an ideal carrying much more weight than what is actually said. Rudy Giuliani recently made headlines by saying that the president " didn't love America", saying that Obama often criticizes America "much more often than other America presidents". This came on the heels of comments made by the president in which he reminded American Christians, hell bent on labeling terrorists through their Islamic religion, that a lot of terrible things were done in the name of God by Christians including the Crusades, the Inquisition (better known as the Spanish Inquisition in which Jews and Muslims were told to convert or leave or risk persecution) and here in this country, slavery and the Jim Crow segregated South. When confronted on whether or not his comments were racist, Rudy swung for the fences...and missed by saying this:
“Some people thought it was racist — I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people. This isn’t racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism.”
That is an interesting defense because in the speech he made when he said Obama didn't love America he said that the president "wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country". So regardless of what the former NYC mayor actually said, word for word, the connotation was made so as to disparage the president as Commander in Chief. It doesn't matter that what he said was, above all other things, pretty damn stupid. What matters is the idea that he got across to those who respect what he says. This type of political pandering is dangerously close to the ideals of terrorism, if you really think about it. While terrorists use fear and violence to coerce others to follow their lead, many politicians use fear through rhetoric to do the same exact thing. Negative campaign ads often put political opponents in a scary light to give the viewer the idea that this particular person will take things away from voters or will take away from the values that this country was based on. If the viewer believes what the ad is portraying to be true, that likely will influence them at the polls. More times than not, the words of the ad or the politician ring hollow because the ideal was based on getting support for a agenda and the words were just meant to entice the listener, reader, etc.. While the words themselves play a huge role in influencing people, voters or what have you, nitpicking at what a politician or average person says or doesn't say is trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Anyone who experienced 9/11, watches the news or is familiar with the conflicts this country has had in the Middle East over the past 20 years knows exactly what a terrorist is and what terrorist acts are. Obama and any other world leader doesn't have to come out and provoke these groups by making a marked verbal attack on Islamic or any other culture and faith. What Obama says has no effect at all on whatever strategies the administration decides they will put into play to combat any potential threat. What Obama said about the way people view "violent extremists" in relation to Christians is true. The scope of religion in conflict is narrowed down to those on either religious side. Anything done in the name of one's religion or God is "righteous" in their eyes and one will do anything to accomplish those goals, whether morally right or not. That's the way these extremists need to be viewed because that is the root of their actions. Whatever you want to call them is irrelevant. What is done to stop them is more important.
Case in point: A lot has been made, said and written about the president's choice of words when it comes to terrorism. We can go back to the Benghazi incident and see that this is a running theme with Republicans and other Obama detractors. It is their opinion that by Obama "failing" to classify certain incidents as "terrorist acts" that it takes away from the seriousness of these incidents. The Charlie Hebdo incident was another case in which Obama was lambasted for initially not saying that the attack in France was a "terrorist attack". And as of late, Obama has chosen to not classify ISIS (or ISIL) as "radical Islamists", instead opting to refer to them as "violent extremists". Some politicians and critics have said his choice of words, or lack thereof, shows his inability to lead this country. Others have said it shows his unwillingness to take a hardline stance on Islamic terrorism. Obama has said that in not calling ISIS radical Islamists or Islamist terrorists, it separates them from the whole of the Islamic faith, therefore not giving the impression that all Muslims are terrorists and that Islam is a violent religion. He has said that his objectives in combating ISIS is "not a war against Islam" but a war against the extremists who claim to be doing the work of Allah. While one may not agree with whatever strategies that Obama intends to lay out, logically one can or should agree that Obama has the right idea in mind in not wanting to make this about a war against a particular religion. If that was the case, then we'd have a terrible situation that could be likened to the Holocaust. But no one on the political right seems to see the wisdom in Obama's choice of words.
Here is why I personally believe that the terminology one chooses to use is trivial when compared to the ideals those words may represent. Take the example of a person who commits a crime. There are a number of crimes on could commit, and the penalties vary depending on the crime. But if the crime can be proven to have been committed by the individual, then it doesn't matter if you acknowledge the person as a killer, burglar, rapist, etc.. That person committed said crime and the only distinction any of those labels will hold is the type of punishment the crime comes with. If a person or group of people commit "acts of terror" which by definition is an act causing "extreme fear to coerce people" or "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear", not labeling them as "terrorists" doesn't somehow dispel what they are actually doing, nor does labeling them as such improve ones chances at stopping them. It's all just terminology, which is used to instill a certain image or attitude in others so as to persuade them to follow a certain ideal. If you put a face on terror (like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein), then you put fear in those who associate those individuals with things like 9/11 or suicide bombers. But today's "terrorists" are "faceless", in that many currently are operating as individuals or small groups. The Al-Queda's and ISIS' are now more of an ideology these days. Individuals or "lone wolfs" as they are being called, are following these ideals and committing acts on their own. Whether you call them terrorists, Islamic radicals or violent extremists or not, their acts speak for themselves. What you call them doesn't matter, it's how they are stopped that's more important anyway.
But critics of the president say terminology and solutions go hand in hand when it comes to the new war on terror. I say, it's political branding. You have to put a name on something that you want to sell to the American public, on either side of the aisle. Healthcare reform was branded "Obamacare" so that those who didn't agree with Obama's political agenda would instantly cringe whenever they heard that term and automatically view it as "un-American" or unconstitutional. Politically, that was a great strategy. Republicans branded Obama as a socialist due to the fact that the word carries a negative connotation. But the true definition of socialism is a series of ideologies aimed at providing opportunities for every individual to maximize their potential, therefore giving every citizen an equal chance at prosperity. Or, at least that's what it is in theory. Socialism used to be linked to communism, especially during the Cold War era and the Soviet Union regime years. Nowadays, it's linked to the ideals of an American president who is thought to be everything from the worst president ever to the anti-Christ. And let's not forget, he just happens to not be white. There is currently a US Senator named Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who identifies himself as a "democratic socialist" and has been serving since 2007. Before today I had never heard of him. Maybe you have, or not.
Here's another example of an ideal carrying much more weight than what is actually said. Rudy Giuliani recently made headlines by saying that the president " didn't love America", saying that Obama often criticizes America "much more often than other America presidents". This came on the heels of comments made by the president in which he reminded American Christians, hell bent on labeling terrorists through their Islamic religion, that a lot of terrible things were done in the name of God by Christians including the Crusades, the Inquisition (better known as the Spanish Inquisition in which Jews and Muslims were told to convert or leave or risk persecution) and here in this country, slavery and the Jim Crow segregated South. When confronted on whether or not his comments were racist, Rudy swung for the fences...and missed by saying this:
“Some people thought it was racist — I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people. This isn’t racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism.”
That is an interesting defense because in the speech he made when he said Obama didn't love America he said that the president "wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country". So regardless of what the former NYC mayor actually said, word for word, the connotation was made so as to disparage the president as Commander in Chief. It doesn't matter that what he said was, above all other things, pretty damn stupid. What matters is the idea that he got across to those who respect what he says. This type of political pandering is dangerously close to the ideals of terrorism, if you really think about it. While terrorists use fear and violence to coerce others to follow their lead, many politicians use fear through rhetoric to do the same exact thing. Negative campaign ads often put political opponents in a scary light to give the viewer the idea that this particular person will take things away from voters or will take away from the values that this country was based on. If the viewer believes what the ad is portraying to be true, that likely will influence them at the polls. More times than not, the words of the ad or the politician ring hollow because the ideal was based on getting support for a agenda and the words were just meant to entice the listener, reader, etc.. While the words themselves play a huge role in influencing people, voters or what have you, nitpicking at what a politician or average person says or doesn't say is trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Anyone who experienced 9/11, watches the news or is familiar with the conflicts this country has had in the Middle East over the past 20 years knows exactly what a terrorist is and what terrorist acts are. Obama and any other world leader doesn't have to come out and provoke these groups by making a marked verbal attack on Islamic or any other culture and faith. What Obama says has no effect at all on whatever strategies the administration decides they will put into play to combat any potential threat. What Obama said about the way people view "violent extremists" in relation to Christians is true. The scope of religion in conflict is narrowed down to those on either religious side. Anything done in the name of one's religion or God is "righteous" in their eyes and one will do anything to accomplish those goals, whether morally right or not. That's the way these extremists need to be viewed because that is the root of their actions. Whatever you want to call them is irrelevant. What is done to stop them is more important.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Opinion(s): A Rant to Sum Up a Host of Different Feelings
I've started a series of posts lately and couldn't complete any of them because they were all fractured thoughts. But I feel they are relevant thoughts, especially since I feel so passionately about them all. So, in no particular order of importance or chronology, and in a nod to Kanye West pissing the world off at the Grammy's this week, here are a few of the things I've been on lately:
The Fall of The Wu: It finally happened, even though I may be the last Wu-Tang Clan fan to admit it (probably not). With the December 2014 release of A Better Tomorrow, which I was uber late on listening to, the Iron Flag brothers showed their fans that 8 Diagrams wasn't an anomaly. It was a testament of things to come. The RZA has outgrown his brothers from Shaolin and Raekwon is no longer interested in being part of a dated collective if that means softening the identity of "the hardest group in the game". Ghostface just seems bored with the whole thing. Method Man seems engaged, if only to prove to himself that he can still spit like it's '94. GZA's subject matter and intellect seems to have transcended Earth, so much so that every line he spits on the album seems to have been steeped in scientific research like he's searching for the cure to what ails the Clan. Masta Killa and Inspectah Deck seemed to have peaked and U-God, although sounding more refreshed and refined than he has since his featured verses on the first Only Built for Cuban Linx album, is, well U-God. Cappadonna seemed oddly out of place. The only thing that seemed right about A Better Tomorrow was the places where RZA inserted voice clips of ODB. Those seemed to be as perfectly timed as the album was imperfect, which is quite a shame. I feel like the demise of the Wu could have been totally avoided, especially since they've recently celebrated the 20th anniversary of their landmark album Enter the Wu Tang (36 Chambers), if RZA had just stuck to the formulas that made the Clan iconic in the first place. So what if it sounded dated or came across as an attempt to recapture those glory days from back then? For the last hurrah, I think that would have been the perfect way to go out as a group that we will never, ever see the likes of again. But maybe that 20 year run was way too much to be sustained anyway and they just lucked up being able to do it. It just feels like they went out like Rocky did in Rocky V, a broken down shell of a once glorious fighter. Let's just hope that if they decide to right this wrong, they do as well as Sylvester Stallone did with Rocky Balboa, which was filmed as if Rocky V never happened. It really makes me wish the secret album that the Clan only released one copy of, Once Upon A Time in Shaolin which was said to be auctioned online, was available to the general public. I heard a clip of one song here ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2014/05/06/wu-tangs-secret-album-hear-51-seconds-of-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin/) and that was better than the entire ABT album. Listen, I'll forever be a Wu-Tang fan, regardless if they never make anymore music together. I'm just hoping that they do, and that it is that Wu-Tang shit!!!!
Kobe Bryant a.k.a Grumpy Old Black Mamba: Only Kobe Bryant can make being stubborn and delusional so entertaining. I don't think anyone who loves or hates the way Kobe plays ever thought he could return from two severe leg injuries at his age and be very competitive. But we all loved watching him try. His insane shot selection along with his volume of shots this season has made an in his prime Allen Iverson look like a conservative shooter. Watching the likes of Byron Scott dare to challenge him was awesome, if only because we all knew Byron Scott knew he couldn't tell Kobe shit back when they played together, let alone now. Watching Kobe tell Jeremey Lin to "get the fuck out of the way, I got this" with the game tied at 86 all with 15 seconds left against the Denver Nuggets was classic. Watching Nick "Swaggy P" Young's reaction (*deadpan look* Really, mu'fucka? Really???) was awesome. Kobe missing the shot? Not so much. But when you've got a guy like Kobe (even an old broken down Kobe) on a Laker's team like they currently have assembled in Los Angeles, you don't have a choice. What, you expected the Black Mamba to go silently into the retirement night on a team he thinks he can beat all by himself? You live with that kid of theatre because the team is not winning, it isn't KB8's fault, you're paying him $24 mil per for this season and next AND you don't really know how much he's got left in that 'ol cloned Michael Jordan tank of his. So you let him Brett Farve the last two seasons of his illustrious career because you know he's going to do it anyway, regardless if it's in Laker's purple and gold or (gasp!) Knicks' cobalt and orange. And you'd hate for him to end up telling you "I told you so!" on national television playing for New York (or the Clippers).
Oscar Snubs: So Selma deserves more than a nomination for Best Song and Best Picture. David Oyelowo deserves a Best Actor nod for not just being MLK Jr. but for being that MLK Jr., the Selma, Alabama version. There isn't another character in the field that was recognized that represents what Martin Luther King, Jr. represented in and to this country. We're talking about recognizing that. We're not talking about winning the Oscar because the actual win is a popularity contest or a facsimile of a lifetime achievement award. To not even be nominated is more of a snub than not winning. I can make the same argument for the Best Director snub. Now, I'm not taking anything away from Bradley Cooper and his Best Actor nod. It just doesn't seem right when you've got an actor playing a soldier in a controversial role as an American sniper in a war regarded around the world as morally wrong get the consideration but an era crossing portrayal of the leader of the Civil Rights movement and the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize doesn't. Seems ass backwards to me, amongst other things. But whatever. I hope Michael Keaton wins for Birdman so we can see how ridiculous this shit really is.
The 2015 Grammys: Beck wasn't the only person whose win should've been questioned. I guess when your nominees are Wiz Khalifa, Schoolboy Q, Iggy Azalea Common, along with the kid from Community who raps now and an over the hill Slim Shady, you gotta go with Slim. I guess record sales drove that win because I was as underwhelmed by MM2 as I was by ABT. Common's Nobody Is Smiling was a solid effort and Schoolboy Q's Oxymoron was better than expected, at least by me. And Wiz wasn't winning anyway. I guess the people who determine these sort of things figured they couldn't screw Kendrick Lamar twice and give a phonograph to his lesser talented crewmate. So Marshall wins by default. But it tells me that the up and coming crop of top notch MC's better get used to watching their less talented peers or throwback relics win. Or the next gimmick single driven non-Black performer who wins by surprising the shit out of everyone by their marketing machine.
*in my extremely loud and annoying DJ Khaled voice* KANYE WEST!!!!!: Speaking of the Grammy's, I'm with 'Ye 24/7. I was last time when he cold dissed Taylor Swift (and subsequently launched her star into the stratosphere, she's welcome!) and I am with him semi-dissing Beck this year. I mean, frickin' Beck??? I remember Where It's At and it was a dope record...back in 1996!!!! Name Beck's last hit record. Go ahead, I'll wait. Can you name a song off of the album he just won Album of the Year for? No seriously, I'll wait, I literally have nothing better to do at this particular moment. You can't. You know why? BECAUSE NOBODY CAN!!! Beck probably can't and he showed how shocked he was by trying to get Mr. West to come back on stage after Kanye decided it wasn't worth it to give him the Taylor Swift treatment. Think about that. Everyone thinks it was a joke but Kanye, who loves shit like this, CHANGED HIS MIND. Beck's last album was in 2008 and I had to Wikipedia that to find out. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of music that I am not up on. I'm not really up on Sam Smith but I know he had one of the biggest hits this year, I actually know and like the song and if he could win 4 Grammy's (he did get best pop album) then I would have rather seen him win a fifth for Album of the Year than see Beck win. Or as a nice consolation prize, Beyonce'. At least one of them winning would have had merit and then Kanye could've done something else crazy that we all could have appreciated later.
And last but not least The New York Knicks: 'Melo. Shut it down. Go have the surgery on that gimpy old knee, go rehab with old man winter, Kobe-yahshi Maru, (get it, Trekkies?) and get ready for next season and the 2016 season. And forget about wining that ring. Unless you join your buddies J.R. and Shump in Cleveland or a West Coast team, the only rings you'll ever see are Phil Jackson's. If he hangs around long enough.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
The NYPD, Disprespect and Honesty: The Truth
For weeks now, we've watched as the NYPD has been in sort of a standoff with New York City mayor Bill de Blasio and, in some cases, the citizens of New York City as well. In the wake of the ambush killings of officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, police officers in the city are on high alert, as well they should be. There is no doubt that police officers around the country have a very dangerous job. But the current controversy surrounding the perception of police officers, not just in New York City but around the nation, has turned into political mudslinging event where officers are feeling disrespected by the citizens they are paid to serve and protect. Of course, the decisions of the grand juries in New York and Missouri to not indict the officers involved in the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown have a lot to do with that. But what is not really talked about is the perceptions of the people who feel passionately about those decisions and their determination to be heard. I spoke about this a little bit in my last blog post (http://speakonitwithmaxlit.blogspot.com/2014/12/opinion-reason-why-things-are-way-they.html).
Bill de Blasio said that he understood and sympathized with protesters who were outraged at the decision to not indict Daniel Pantaleo, the officer who has been accused of using a department banned choke hold in his attempt to subdue Eric Garner. This set off a series of events that led to police officers literally turning their backs on the mayor three separate times in their own act of protest, the last two times coming during funerals for the slain officers. Many police union officials and officers have said that they feel like the mayor does not support the police. Several law enforcement officials, former and current political figures and ordinary citizens have said that de Blasio's statement has created an 'anti-police' rhetoric that paved the way for the killings of Ramos and Liu and for future acts of violence against police. On December 16th, an employee at a Brooklyn Heights Chipotle raised his hands in the "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!" gesture (in regards to the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, MO.) as a group of officers entered the restaurant, prompting those officers to leave and set off another wave of conversation, reporting and rumor spinning about how police officers aren't being shown the proper respect as individuals who are in place to protect the public.
Let me say this, and I say this with all sincerity. It's about damn time people openly and outwardly peacefully protested in any way they feel is appropriate to them when it comes to the injustices that happens around us, especially with the NYPD. The mayor was right to say that he understood and sympathized with protesters because he knows it was a farce to not indict Pantaleo. As a person in an interracial relationship (his wife, Chirlane McCray, is Black) with bi-racial children, he knows how easily people who look like his wife and kids can become victims of police brutality and harassment. He ran a campaign on police reform during his election bid, knowing the dark history of the department, in an effort to prevent incidents like the one involving Eric Garner. His comments weren't an indictment of the entire NYPD but it was the mayor recognizing that there is a serious problem within the department and those who felt the same way have credible reasons for those feelings. Those officers decided to turn their backs on the mayor, in their own form of protest. The respect level of that action is debatable, but turning your back to someone usually is done to show a lack of respect. Yes, the chants that could be heard during some of the protest rallies about dead cops were inappropriate; that should have never taken place or been promoted. But if Pantaleo never choked the life out of Garner on a city sidewalk, if the Staten Island prosecutor had really done his job and pushed for an indictment from the grand jury, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Officers lives are in danger not because de Blasio, President Obama and Eric Holder have spoken out against the practices of police when it comes to Black citizens, but because the actions of a few police officers and individuals in places of judicial authority have led to public outrage. When you have such a toxic situation like the relationship between inner city residents and abusive police officers and practices, and a system that refuses to hold these officers accountable, then you will have unfortunate, violent occurrences and tragic deaths on both sides of the issue.
I recently read this article ( http://nypost.com/2014/12/30/nypd-and-the-military-our-angels-in-a-time-of-danger-and-cynicism/) by Michael Goodwin, a contributor to the New York Post. If you get a chance, take a look at the first portion this article, as the other portions address different topics. It's basically an Mr. Goodwin's take on why he feels the NYPD and our military are going so unappreciated these days. He mentioned the cynicism of the American public and "a political class too craven" or cowardly "to care." He mentioned this in an effort to figure out where "the majesty" of America had gone, calling our country's political culture "wrecked", taking a few subtle and obvious jabs at our president, New York City's mayor and others who have expressed views not to his particular liking. He brought up the incident that occurred on Obama's latest vacation to Hawaii, where an Army couple wedding ceremony had to be moved to another location on the course where the president was scheduled to play golf, as a prime example of the root cause of the "problem". And he also said this:
None of this has anything to do with any perceived disrespect for the NYPD or the military for that matter. As far as I can tell, many Americans hold our military in very high regard, especially the soldiers with their boots on the ground. While I can somewhat agree on Goodwin's sentiments regarding the wedding incident, the problem I see with his rhetoric is that Goodwin's perception of the NYPD is skewed. He feels that the NYPD along with our military are the only American institutions that still serve with devotion to duty and honor. While individual officers in the NYPD may absolutely serve with that devotion, it is no secret that the organization has a history of throwing duty and honor to the wind, aided by those who are put in place to make sure they follow the highest of standards. The fact that people are openly expressing their feelings about the practices that Blacks and other minorities are often subject to isn't disrespectful, it's eye opening and commendable from my point of view. A lot has been made of Obama's apologies to other countries for some of our nations practices in the past. Some say that makes this country look weak. Goodwin says that type of talk convinces people that they are victims. Others say that Obama's rhetoric makes people, Black people especially, feel entitled, like someone owes them something. Well, I say, there are thousands of people who this country does owe a whole lot to, the least of all an explanation on why justice evades those who are truly victims of violent crimes, of economic and social injustice, of access to decent public educations, economic equality, etc.. The idea that when a person, especially the President of the United State, acknowledges the wrongdoings of a country to it's citizens and others abroad is somehow showing weakness shows me that these wrongs were calculated and intentional, done to show strength of those who are truly in charge. Sounds similar to the response to the wrongful deaths of many Black and Hispanic men, women and children by the hands of law enforcement officers around the country.
There was a time in this country when policemen, politicians, community leaders and other public servants were held in very high regard by most. Policemen were admired for the courage they displayed in faithfully carrying out their duties to protect the innocent and uphold the law. But as the times go on, we see more and more of those in positions of authority use that authority to advance their own agendas, hungry for more power and driven by selfish incentives. Sure, de Blasio could be driven by his own agenda by "siding" with protesters, as his detractors would say he is. So could the president and Eric Holder. But so is Mr. Goodwin, Rudy Giuliani and others who have used the deaths of officers Ramos and Liu to divide a city already on the verge. This is not about disrespecting police officers. It's about those police officers having more respect for the very important job they decided that they wanted to do. It's about them doing it right and being held accountable, without bias in any way, when they do it wrong.
Bill de Blasio said that he understood and sympathized with protesters who were outraged at the decision to not indict Daniel Pantaleo, the officer who has been accused of using a department banned choke hold in his attempt to subdue Eric Garner. This set off a series of events that led to police officers literally turning their backs on the mayor three separate times in their own act of protest, the last two times coming during funerals for the slain officers. Many police union officials and officers have said that they feel like the mayor does not support the police. Several law enforcement officials, former and current political figures and ordinary citizens have said that de Blasio's statement has created an 'anti-police' rhetoric that paved the way for the killings of Ramos and Liu and for future acts of violence against police. On December 16th, an employee at a Brooklyn Heights Chipotle raised his hands in the "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!" gesture (in regards to the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, MO.) as a group of officers entered the restaurant, prompting those officers to leave and set off another wave of conversation, reporting and rumor spinning about how police officers aren't being shown the proper respect as individuals who are in place to protect the public.
Let me say this, and I say this with all sincerity. It's about damn time people openly and outwardly peacefully protested in any way they feel is appropriate to them when it comes to the injustices that happens around us, especially with the NYPD. The mayor was right to say that he understood and sympathized with protesters because he knows it was a farce to not indict Pantaleo. As a person in an interracial relationship (his wife, Chirlane McCray, is Black) with bi-racial children, he knows how easily people who look like his wife and kids can become victims of police brutality and harassment. He ran a campaign on police reform during his election bid, knowing the dark history of the department, in an effort to prevent incidents like the one involving Eric Garner. His comments weren't an indictment of the entire NYPD but it was the mayor recognizing that there is a serious problem within the department and those who felt the same way have credible reasons for those feelings. Those officers decided to turn their backs on the mayor, in their own form of protest. The respect level of that action is debatable, but turning your back to someone usually is done to show a lack of respect. Yes, the chants that could be heard during some of the protest rallies about dead cops were inappropriate; that should have never taken place or been promoted. But if Pantaleo never choked the life out of Garner on a city sidewalk, if the Staten Island prosecutor had really done his job and pushed for an indictment from the grand jury, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Officers lives are in danger not because de Blasio, President Obama and Eric Holder have spoken out against the practices of police when it comes to Black citizens, but because the actions of a few police officers and individuals in places of judicial authority have led to public outrage. When you have such a toxic situation like the relationship between inner city residents and abusive police officers and practices, and a system that refuses to hold these officers accountable, then you will have unfortunate, violent occurrences and tragic deaths on both sides of the issue.
I recently read this article ( http://nypost.com/2014/12/30/nypd-and-the-military-our-angels-in-a-time-of-danger-and-cynicism/) by Michael Goodwin, a contributor to the New York Post. If you get a chance, take a look at the first portion this article, as the other portions address different topics. It's basically an Mr. Goodwin's take on why he feels the NYPD and our military are going so unappreciated these days. He mentioned the cynicism of the American public and "a political class too craven" or cowardly "to care." He mentioned this in an effort to figure out where "the majesty" of America had gone, calling our country's political culture "wrecked", taking a few subtle and obvious jabs at our president, New York City's mayor and others who have expressed views not to his particular liking. He brought up the incident that occurred on Obama's latest vacation to Hawaii, where an Army couple wedding ceremony had to be moved to another location on the course where the president was scheduled to play golf, as a prime example of the root cause of the "problem". And he also said this:
"Instead of hiring a political class that inspires our better angels, we increasingly elect people devoted to stoking resentment and grievance. Too many of our so-called “honorables” talk the country down and convince people they are victims. Some even preach that America is “broken,” a code word that gives them license to sweep away all the good with the bad."
None of this has anything to do with any perceived disrespect for the NYPD or the military for that matter. As far as I can tell, many Americans hold our military in very high regard, especially the soldiers with their boots on the ground. While I can somewhat agree on Goodwin's sentiments regarding the wedding incident, the problem I see with his rhetoric is that Goodwin's perception of the NYPD is skewed. He feels that the NYPD along with our military are the only American institutions that still serve with devotion to duty and honor. While individual officers in the NYPD may absolutely serve with that devotion, it is no secret that the organization has a history of throwing duty and honor to the wind, aided by those who are put in place to make sure they follow the highest of standards. The fact that people are openly expressing their feelings about the practices that Blacks and other minorities are often subject to isn't disrespectful, it's eye opening and commendable from my point of view. A lot has been made of Obama's apologies to other countries for some of our nations practices in the past. Some say that makes this country look weak. Goodwin says that type of talk convinces people that they are victims. Others say that Obama's rhetoric makes people, Black people especially, feel entitled, like someone owes them something. Well, I say, there are thousands of people who this country does owe a whole lot to, the least of all an explanation on why justice evades those who are truly victims of violent crimes, of economic and social injustice, of access to decent public educations, economic equality, etc.. The idea that when a person, especially the President of the United State, acknowledges the wrongdoings of a country to it's citizens and others abroad is somehow showing weakness shows me that these wrongs were calculated and intentional, done to show strength of those who are truly in charge. Sounds similar to the response to the wrongful deaths of many Black and Hispanic men, women and children by the hands of law enforcement officers around the country.
There was a time in this country when policemen, politicians, community leaders and other public servants were held in very high regard by most. Policemen were admired for the courage they displayed in faithfully carrying out their duties to protect the innocent and uphold the law. But as the times go on, we see more and more of those in positions of authority use that authority to advance their own agendas, hungry for more power and driven by selfish incentives. Sure, de Blasio could be driven by his own agenda by "siding" with protesters, as his detractors would say he is. So could the president and Eric Holder. But so is Mr. Goodwin, Rudy Giuliani and others who have used the deaths of officers Ramos and Liu to divide a city already on the verge. This is not about disrespecting police officers. It's about those police officers having more respect for the very important job they decided that they wanted to do. It's about them doing it right and being held accountable, without bias in any way, when they do it wrong.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Opinion: The Reason Why Things Are The Way They Are
I've tried over the last few weeks to blog about the developments that have taken place since the grand juries in Ferguson and New York decided not to indict the officers involved in those shootings. I've started maybe seven different posts trying to express my feelings and with each attempt, there was a new incident to weigh in on. From Akai Gurley's shooting in Brooklyn, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, OH and John Crawford in Beavercreek, OH, amongst others that have gone unreported or underreported, there has been a biting rhetoric on both sides of the issue. But nothing has been more extreme than the views surrounding the Eric Garner situation in New York. While the Ferguson protests had gotten out of hand early with looting, riots, fire and violent clashes with police, the fallout from the grand jury deciding to not indict Daniel Pantaleo has crossed political lines as well as racial lines. When New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said that he had sympathy for those protesting the grand jury decision, many police officers felt that the mayor was taking a stand against them. One of de Blasio's election campaign initiatives that he ran on was police reform. The police union felt that if the mayor had sympathy for those who were looked upon as having anti-police views, then the NYPD doesn't have the support of the mayor.
When 2 officers were killed over this past weekend in what is being labeled as a 'revenge killing' for Eric Garner, the discontent between the police department and the mayor culminated in several uniformed officers turning their backs on de Blasio and police commissioner Bill Bratton when they entered a press conference related to the shooting. Police across the nation are on high alert now that someone has successfully murdered two police officers (and subsequently themselves) and this will only bring about more tension between local law and the communities like Ferguson and New York City when both citizens and police officers now have a legitimate reason to be fearful for their lives.
Even though racism plays a HUGE part in these situations (and admitting that, really, is as important as acknowledging that police have a very difficult job and are not all bad), we also have to realize the culture that both police and minorities have bred in their respective communities regarding each other. In the inner cities, crime is very high. That has less to do with the race of people there than it has to do with how those people are treated as a whole because of their race. In Black and Hispanic communities in cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, most of these inner city citizens live in housing projects where hundreds and thousands of people occupy a very small space. Most of these communities are set up where the children never leave that radius. They go to school in the same general area, their parents shop and may even work in that area. These projects were set up so that the people who lived their never had to leave (ironically, in many cases, they weren't originally built for Blacks but for immigrant families like the Italians, Polish and other European immigrants. History shows that crime in these areas were always high, even when white immigrants occupied the slums in New York and Chicago because of the living conditions and the apparent lack of concern by local government and police for those areas. Organized crime has their roots in the early immigrant slums, i.e, the reference book and related movie 'Gangs of New York'. When these families were able to make a way for themselves and move out to neighboring areas, working class Black families moved into these areas and subsequently, the cities built the housing projects to contain the large number of occupants in a such a small radius). Generations of families live in these areas, so while some from more affluent areas travel across town or across the country to visit relatives, the families living in these projects may never even have to go outside of their building to go see their grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. I've grown up with people who said they never left their general project neighborhoods until they went to high school. Some have never left until they got their first job. Others, due to their economic situation, never leave at all, if not for an extenuating circumstance. So when you hear people like former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani respond to questions about the extreme police presence in Black communities by saying "white officers wouldn't be there if weren't killing each other", you begin to understand what I mean by the "culture" that is bred amongst police officers in cities and environments such as the housing projects or low income neighborhoods in New York City. That breeds a counter culture in the Black communities where the threat of police brutality or over policing (stop and frisk) fosters distrust from innocents citizens. When you have those with guns in positions of authority over those who have real life examples to look at that show them they are literally under attack in some cases, a violent reaction is all but inevitable. In fact, it will definitely happen. At this point, no one on either side of the issue trusts the other. But this is not a justification for any violence against police.
Side Note: History shows that crime in these areas were always high, even when white immigrants occupied the slums in New York and Chicago because of the living conditions and the apparent lack of concern by local government for those areas. Organized crime has their roots in the early immigrant slums, i.e, the reference book and related movie 'Gangs of New York'.
What is also at the root of the issue is the media. Yes, they have to report what's going on. With the 24 hour news cycle, seeing violent images or hearing of these incidents and reading minute by minute updates online, one can easily and quickly become discontented. When you have reports that lean heavily to one side of the issue, you have pundits and commentators showing extreme bias and passion to appeal to their viewers. When you have people who only watch FoxNews or only watch msnbc, only watch Politics Nation with Al Sharpton and/ or Melissa Harris-Perry's Show, only watch Joe Scarborough's Show Morning Joe, and don't care to see or hear any other views on certain subject, they're inundated with personal views that they agree with. So if you hear Al Sharpton railing against the NYPD but you don't hear someone who says "well, while their has been wrongdoing and corruption in the department for decades, we have to continue to realize that the department as a whole does want to protect and serve", then an opinion against the police is self fostered and that could permeate to others in the community. On the flip side, if you are constantly emboldened by opinions that all Black people are on welfare and all they do is kill each other and now they're attacking police and never see and hear of examples of the many minority families who are working class and doing very well and have never been subject to any type of violence, then your opinion of Black people and minorities would be similar to what you allow yourself to be exposed to on the news or wherever. So while the news media does have a responsibility to report the news fair and balanced, we have a responsibility to be reasonable and hold ourselves accountable to knowing that every racial group, political organization, law enforcement agency, etc., has good and bad apples, good and bad policies and truths and untruths. Reality, in some of those cases, may often match perception and we have to admit to that, too.
But the real problem is us, as a whole, as humans. Not enough of us care. When George Zimmerman was not held responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin, I personally believe it re-ignited a precedent in the minds of those citizens that don't hold human life in high regard. George Zimmerman was guilty on many accounts and the law protected him instead of the young life he extinguished. And while this was not the first time it happened in recent years, it opened up a new discussion on race in this country, while we have Black president in office. When Obama identified with Trayvon Martin and his family, it set events into motion that changed how people expressed their negative views on race. When Michael Dunn shot and killed Jordan Davis over loud music, although he was convicted and sentenced to 90+ years in jail, you have to wonder if he ever thought he'd be held accountable for shooting some Black kid. The same goes for Darren Wilson and Dan Pantaleo. The officers who shot Tamir Rice and John Crawford reacted to the descriptions of the individuals that posed a supposed threat. With the cases that were in the news, I'm sure those officers thought, "shoot first, ask questions last". Rice was shot two seconds after police arrived on the scene, apparently without word from the dispatcher that the 12 year old was holding what was "probably a fake" gun. Crawford was shot when someone called 911 and told the dispatcher that a man was waving a gun in the store. Video surveillance shows that Crawford never interacted with anyone as he walked through the aisles with the toy rifle. When it was found out that the gun was just a toy, officers interrogated his girlfriend aggressively, trying to get her to tell them if she saw Crawford walk into the store with the gun, even threatening her with arrest. All of this in an effort to somehow justify the shooting.
What gets me in all of this is how those who support Brown, Garner, Martin and all those countless other who've been killed unjustly are looked at as if all of a sudden, they are anti-police. Like Black people have just started experiencing these things. Three St. Louis Rams players who made the "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!" gesture in what they said was support of the families in Ferguson were vilified by local police and called irresponsible. When Derrick Rose wore his "I Can't Breathe" shirt during warm ups that sparked others around the league, including LeBron James, to do the same, a lot of people thought that was inappropriate. They felt like the protests were inappropriate. But when has standing up for what you believe in, especially when it comes to injustice, ever really been appropriate? People who protest are doing so because the views that they believe in are not popular views. To protest for a cause is a right that everyone has. Police brutality is obviously a real issue, otherwise politicians and lawmakers wouldn't be pushing for reform (like they have been my entire life). Whenever an unarmed man is killed by another person, white or Black, police officer or everyday citizen, there is going to be outrage as long as it is an unjustified killing. No one is siding with the young man, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who killed officers Wenjian Liu and Rafeal Ramos as they sat in their patrol car. It was an unjustified killing, plain and simple. Anyone that thinks differently is an extremist and really needs to re-examine their views. The problem lies when things aren't as cut and dry as this particular incident is and when there is a justifiable difference of opinion, those who hold that opinion are vilified and viewed as extremist as Brinsley.
When Black people in this country had to fight for the right to live as average citizens, enough people, white and Black cared enough to make a difference. When Black kids had to endure dogs and fire hoses being turned on them just because they wanted to go to school and get as good of an education as their white counterparts, enough people, Black and white, cared enough to make a difference. Today, though, that care from enough of us, Black and white, is gone. Too many of us as Black people won't support hot button issues, won't speak out against those issues, won't participate in protests because of what we feel like might happen to us if we did. I get that, to a certain degree. But look at the things some of us are willing to support. One might look at me and say that I have nothing to lose because I just write a blog that maybe only a handful of people read. Some may feel I don't have interests that might be affected by my opinion on certain things. To that I say regardless of my ambitions, I will gladly risk all of them standing up for what I think is right. And while there are others who have public careers to think about or public endeavours that they don't want to compromise, I say think about your influence in your community and in your circle. If you believe that injustices are occurring, speak up on your feelings. People are listening and they will move with you. Nothing one can attain is worth sitting back while the world crumbles around us.
On the other hand, too many white people are tired of what they call Black people playing the race card. A lot of the negative expressions we hear on race by some white people are based on their feelings that our President is destroying America. They see him as emboldening minorities, supporting undocumented immigrants and changing a culture that they have lived by through the generations of their family. They feel exactly how Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Giuliani, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Don Imus and countless others feel about Blacks and all other non-whites in this country. To see Black people protesting unjustified police shootings of Black children doesn't represent tragedy to them. They see it as people finding an excuse to riot and to loot and steal. They're not even looking at the situation because it's irrelevant to them. They just see ignorant Black people acting up.
All of this contributes to what we see happening around us today. All of us need to see the need to make changes in how we perceive things and one another. Until we can do that, things will get worse.
When 2 officers were killed over this past weekend in what is being labeled as a 'revenge killing' for Eric Garner, the discontent between the police department and the mayor culminated in several uniformed officers turning their backs on de Blasio and police commissioner Bill Bratton when they entered a press conference related to the shooting. Police across the nation are on high alert now that someone has successfully murdered two police officers (and subsequently themselves) and this will only bring about more tension between local law and the communities like Ferguson and New York City when both citizens and police officers now have a legitimate reason to be fearful for their lives.
Even though racism plays a HUGE part in these situations (and admitting that, really, is as important as acknowledging that police have a very difficult job and are not all bad), we also have to realize the culture that both police and minorities have bred in their respective communities regarding each other. In the inner cities, crime is very high. That has less to do with the race of people there than it has to do with how those people are treated as a whole because of their race. In Black and Hispanic communities in cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, most of these inner city citizens live in housing projects where hundreds and thousands of people occupy a very small space. Most of these communities are set up where the children never leave that radius. They go to school in the same general area, their parents shop and may even work in that area. These projects were set up so that the people who lived their never had to leave (ironically, in many cases, they weren't originally built for Blacks but for immigrant families like the Italians, Polish and other European immigrants. History shows that crime in these areas were always high, even when white immigrants occupied the slums in New York and Chicago because of the living conditions and the apparent lack of concern by local government and police for those areas. Organized crime has their roots in the early immigrant slums, i.e, the reference book and related movie 'Gangs of New York'. When these families were able to make a way for themselves and move out to neighboring areas, working class Black families moved into these areas and subsequently, the cities built the housing projects to contain the large number of occupants in a such a small radius). Generations of families live in these areas, so while some from more affluent areas travel across town or across the country to visit relatives, the families living in these projects may never even have to go outside of their building to go see their grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. I've grown up with people who said they never left their general project neighborhoods until they went to high school. Some have never left until they got their first job. Others, due to their economic situation, never leave at all, if not for an extenuating circumstance. So when you hear people like former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani respond to questions about the extreme police presence in Black communities by saying "white officers wouldn't be there if weren't killing each other", you begin to understand what I mean by the "culture" that is bred amongst police officers in cities and environments such as the housing projects or low income neighborhoods in New York City. That breeds a counter culture in the Black communities where the threat of police brutality or over policing (stop and frisk) fosters distrust from innocents citizens. When you have those with guns in positions of authority over those who have real life examples to look at that show them they are literally under attack in some cases, a violent reaction is all but inevitable. In fact, it will definitely happen. At this point, no one on either side of the issue trusts the other. But this is not a justification for any violence against police.
Side Note: History shows that crime in these areas were always high, even when white immigrants occupied the slums in New York and Chicago because of the living conditions and the apparent lack of concern by local government for those areas. Organized crime has their roots in the early immigrant slums, i.e, the reference book and related movie 'Gangs of New York'.
What is also at the root of the issue is the media. Yes, they have to report what's going on. With the 24 hour news cycle, seeing violent images or hearing of these incidents and reading minute by minute updates online, one can easily and quickly become discontented. When you have reports that lean heavily to one side of the issue, you have pundits and commentators showing extreme bias and passion to appeal to their viewers. When you have people who only watch FoxNews or only watch msnbc, only watch Politics Nation with Al Sharpton and/ or Melissa Harris-Perry's Show, only watch Joe Scarborough's Show Morning Joe, and don't care to see or hear any other views on certain subject, they're inundated with personal views that they agree with. So if you hear Al Sharpton railing against the NYPD but you don't hear someone who says "well, while their has been wrongdoing and corruption in the department for decades, we have to continue to realize that the department as a whole does want to protect and serve", then an opinion against the police is self fostered and that could permeate to others in the community. On the flip side, if you are constantly emboldened by opinions that all Black people are on welfare and all they do is kill each other and now they're attacking police and never see and hear of examples of the many minority families who are working class and doing very well and have never been subject to any type of violence, then your opinion of Black people and minorities would be similar to what you allow yourself to be exposed to on the news or wherever. So while the news media does have a responsibility to report the news fair and balanced, we have a responsibility to be reasonable and hold ourselves accountable to knowing that every racial group, political organization, law enforcement agency, etc., has good and bad apples, good and bad policies and truths and untruths. Reality, in some of those cases, may often match perception and we have to admit to that, too.
But the real problem is us, as a whole, as humans. Not enough of us care. When George Zimmerman was not held responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin, I personally believe it re-ignited a precedent in the minds of those citizens that don't hold human life in high regard. George Zimmerman was guilty on many accounts and the law protected him instead of the young life he extinguished. And while this was not the first time it happened in recent years, it opened up a new discussion on race in this country, while we have Black president in office. When Obama identified with Trayvon Martin and his family, it set events into motion that changed how people expressed their negative views on race. When Michael Dunn shot and killed Jordan Davis over loud music, although he was convicted and sentenced to 90+ years in jail, you have to wonder if he ever thought he'd be held accountable for shooting some Black kid. The same goes for Darren Wilson and Dan Pantaleo. The officers who shot Tamir Rice and John Crawford reacted to the descriptions of the individuals that posed a supposed threat. With the cases that were in the news, I'm sure those officers thought, "shoot first, ask questions last". Rice was shot two seconds after police arrived on the scene, apparently without word from the dispatcher that the 12 year old was holding what was "probably a fake" gun. Crawford was shot when someone called 911 and told the dispatcher that a man was waving a gun in the store. Video surveillance shows that Crawford never interacted with anyone as he walked through the aisles with the toy rifle. When it was found out that the gun was just a toy, officers interrogated his girlfriend aggressively, trying to get her to tell them if she saw Crawford walk into the store with the gun, even threatening her with arrest. All of this in an effort to somehow justify the shooting.
What gets me in all of this is how those who support Brown, Garner, Martin and all those countless other who've been killed unjustly are looked at as if all of a sudden, they are anti-police. Like Black people have just started experiencing these things. Three St. Louis Rams players who made the "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!" gesture in what they said was support of the families in Ferguson were vilified by local police and called irresponsible. When Derrick Rose wore his "I Can't Breathe" shirt during warm ups that sparked others around the league, including LeBron James, to do the same, a lot of people thought that was inappropriate. They felt like the protests were inappropriate. But when has standing up for what you believe in, especially when it comes to injustice, ever really been appropriate? People who protest are doing so because the views that they believe in are not popular views. To protest for a cause is a right that everyone has. Police brutality is obviously a real issue, otherwise politicians and lawmakers wouldn't be pushing for reform (like they have been my entire life). Whenever an unarmed man is killed by another person, white or Black, police officer or everyday citizen, there is going to be outrage as long as it is an unjustified killing. No one is siding with the young man, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who killed officers Wenjian Liu and Rafeal Ramos as they sat in their patrol car. It was an unjustified killing, plain and simple. Anyone that thinks differently is an extremist and really needs to re-examine their views. The problem lies when things aren't as cut and dry as this particular incident is and when there is a justifiable difference of opinion, those who hold that opinion are vilified and viewed as extremist as Brinsley.
When Black people in this country had to fight for the right to live as average citizens, enough people, white and Black cared enough to make a difference. When Black kids had to endure dogs and fire hoses being turned on them just because they wanted to go to school and get as good of an education as their white counterparts, enough people, Black and white, cared enough to make a difference. Today, though, that care from enough of us, Black and white, is gone. Too many of us as Black people won't support hot button issues, won't speak out against those issues, won't participate in protests because of what we feel like might happen to us if we did. I get that, to a certain degree. But look at the things some of us are willing to support. One might look at me and say that I have nothing to lose because I just write a blog that maybe only a handful of people read. Some may feel I don't have interests that might be affected by my opinion on certain things. To that I say regardless of my ambitions, I will gladly risk all of them standing up for what I think is right. And while there are others who have public careers to think about or public endeavours that they don't want to compromise, I say think about your influence in your community and in your circle. If you believe that injustices are occurring, speak up on your feelings. People are listening and they will move with you. Nothing one can attain is worth sitting back while the world crumbles around us.
On the other hand, too many white people are tired of what they call Black people playing the race card. A lot of the negative expressions we hear on race by some white people are based on their feelings that our President is destroying America. They see him as emboldening minorities, supporting undocumented immigrants and changing a culture that they have lived by through the generations of their family. They feel exactly how Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Giuliani, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Don Imus and countless others feel about Blacks and all other non-whites in this country. To see Black people protesting unjustified police shootings of Black children doesn't represent tragedy to them. They see it as people finding an excuse to riot and to loot and steal. They're not even looking at the situation because it's irrelevant to them. They just see ignorant Black people acting up.
All of this contributes to what we see happening around us today. All of us need to see the need to make changes in how we perceive things and one another. Until we can do that, things will get worse.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
After Ferguson: The Denial of Racism
This blog post was supposed to be about the grand jury decision to not indict officer Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown. It was supposed to speak on the sad excuses that the district attorney used in supporting the decision. It was supposed to talk about how now Dorian Johnson, the young man who was with Brown during the shooting, is hearing calls for him to be brought up on perjury charges. But as I typed up what was to be that blog, I just felt like it was all empty words. Apparently, the powers that be could care less how Michael Brown's family feels, how an entire community in Ferguson feels. What is also apparent is the fact that society doesn't give a damn about the value of Black lives in this country.
I know, I know, I know. Some people might read that line "society doesn't give a damn about Black lives in this country" and say "Whatever, here we go again with the 'America hates Black people' thing". But to hate, you'd have to actually care. When people observe other groups of people protesting over the unnecessary deaths of young Black Americans and respond with rhetoric like "Black people kill other Black people everyday, so why are they protesting this?", that's basically asking, "Why should we care?" When an entire investigation is based on criminalizing or demonizing the victim so that the person who is suspected in a probable crime isn't held in a negative light, that's showing more care or concern for the perpetrator than the victim. When a witnesses testimony is said to be the most consistent of all the witnesses testimonies, and that witness not only changed his retelling of the events in question, but was first said to be 100 yards away, then 50 to 75 yards away, there is a message being sent. And it is "we don't care".
Here is another "we don't care" quote from the illustrious former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani in an interview he had on Fox News Sunday:
A week earlier on Meet the Press, Giuliani blamed Black on Black crime for the need of a heavy police presence in the Black community. When Michael Eric Dyson challenged him, he said this:
All too often, we hear this type of justification when the issue of unjustified police shootings or other shootings and brutalities involving black people and police officers or non-Blacks come up. We heard the same type of justification when the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, just to name those two, were being protested. While these statistics may be true, by numbers only, the whole point gets missed by those who spew this nonsensical line of thought. Black people, especially young Black men, are often subject to police brutality, shootings and other forms of violence from non-Blacks with out clear justification. When these cases are reviewed, they are often handled typically; a short investigation, if any, and a swift decision usually in favor of the non-Black aggressor. It seems, also way too often, that any confrontation between Blacks and non-Blacks comes down to a shooting of the unarmed Black person. Just over the past few weeks while we awaited the grand jury decision in Ferguson, an unarmed young Black man, 28 year old Akai Gurley, was shot to death by a police officer while patrolling the stairwells of a project building. The young man and his girlfriend were taking the stairs due to the elevator being out of service. That shooting, which is said to have been an accident, has since been ruled a homicide but is still under investigation. Also, on Saturday, November 22nd, a 12 year old boy, Tamir Rice, was shot within seconds of police arriving on the scene to respond to a call that the boy was waving a gun and pointing it at people. The person who called made it a point to tell the 911 dispatcher that the individual was just a kid and that the gun could possibly be fake. That point was repeated to the dispatcher but apparently was not relayed to the officers responding to the call. It has been said that the officer told Tamir to show his hands but surveillance video shows that the young man was shot within 2 seconds of the officers arriving. This case is a bit difficult in that the officer was responding to a call that was said to involve a person with a gun. But the breakdown in communication between dispatch and the officer and the fact that it was a fake gun leave many questions unanswered.
I hear people say things like "We're never going to get past race in this country until people stop making everything about race." But everything in this country is about race. Our president is Black and anything said about him, positive and negative, is said and/or perceived through context of race. The fact that our country is over 238 years old and we had our first Black president 219 years after George Washington first took office shows how deeply rooted in race our country is. Race will always be an issue because it was what separated the haves from the have nots for so long. Even now, immigration reform has the face of Hispanic Americans when there are illegal immigrants from all corners of this earth here inside of our borders. Getting past race may be too much for a country so diverse, until the economic distinctions blur racial lines to the point where it is just the uber wealthy and the rest of us. But even that may not ease racial tensions, due to the fact that race is often used to push certain political and social agendas. We can't "wish" it away either, hoping that one day it won't be an issue. People who 'hope for change' have to understand, as sensitive a topic as race relations is in this country, it has to be talked about honestly. Listening to Darren Wilson describe Michael Brown during their altercation sounded like he was told to give as menacing a description as possible so that it would be proliferated throughout the media and that the public opinion would be that Wilson was battling this enraged thug hell bent on killing him. But the details don't add up and it is very obvious that the grand jury was never going to indict Wilson. The indictment would be of Michael Brown, the citizens of Ferguson who protested violently and peacefully and all those who sympathize with Brown, his family and those who feel like police practices and interactions with people of color need to be re-evaluated.
Many say before Black communities can expect change when it comes to the way we are perceived in society, we have to do a lot of changing ourselves. I can agree that there are a lot of issues in the Black community. Charles Barkley said some racial profiling isn't wrong due to the amount of crime that exists in Black communities. There are some young men and women who do fit the profiles that many others place on them. But as a whole, the profiles or stereotypes don't describe an entire community. There shouldn't be a set of "characteristics" that justify injustice, racism or extreme tactics. Michael Brown's personality or character traits didn't justify him being shot down in the street like a dog and left there for over four hours. Eric Garner's personality didn't warrant the deadly force used to subdue him, essentially because he wasn't buying the officer's reasoning on why they were questioning him. So, while change needs to be made within Black communities, it shouldn't dictate how we are treated by authorities, politicians and our neighbors of different races. The simple fact that an argument can be made in this regard shows that a real problem persists amongst those who feel like there are certain rules for certain groups of people. Those rules are usually one set of rules for whites and a series of separate rules for every other ethnic group around the world. In the case of Akai Gurley, different rules of law enforcement for certain areas, like the housing projects of Brooklyn, NY where there is a very high crime rate, leave way too much room for error. I believe that his death may have been the result of an accident. The police officer was relatively new to the force and he was patrolling dark stairwells in the building. Could it have been avoided? I think so, maybe by having seasoned, more experienced officers handle high risk situations such as project building patrols. Individuals close to the case said that Peter Liang, the officer who shot Gurley, was scared during the moments before the shooting. His fear, the instructions and training he had for his patrol (flashlight in one hand and gun drawn in the other) and the reputation those projects have, may all have led to the accidental shooting.
But what can we do? Honestly, I think the only thing we can do is to be honest about the separation that exists in this country. Ben Carson, a possible Republican candidate for the 2016 presidential election, said that race relations in our country have gotten worse under Obama. While that statement is true, his insinuation that it is Obama's fault because he plays the race card too much is not only inaccurate, it's misguided. As I mentioned before, Obama being president is a race card in of itself. You see his Blackness every time you see him on television. You hear his Blackness every time his name is mentioned. You can't get around it. Some people, like Carson, want to say he talks about race too much. People like Cornell West say he doesn't talk about it enough. While many, like me, would like to see him address situations like the Brown case a little more passionately, we can't look to him to be the face of change, at least not anymore. In 2008, we wanted him to be that face, we thought he was going to be that face. But one thing I learned was that the deep rooted racism that many had thought had subsided resurfaced more aggressively the day he took office. While some white Americans had been agreeable to the possibility of a Black president, many felt and still feel that a Black person isn't qualified to hold that position. Change takes more than time; it takes acceptance, patience and tolerance. These aren't things that our country has been known for throughout it's history. But whenever there is a conflict and someone brings up race, the conversation often turns to that itself than to a solution for the conflict. It's because we really want to believe that racism is dead and that we as a society are advanced enough to have moved on from that. It's just not true. Once we as a nation can admit that, then we can work on ways to coexist peacefully with one another entirely. But as long as we try to fool ourselves that the problem doesn't start with our perceptions, on both sides of the spectrum, then the issues that we see in places like Ferguson will not only continue to occur, they will get much, much worse.
I know, I know, I know. Some people might read that line "society doesn't give a damn about Black lives in this country" and say "Whatever, here we go again with the 'America hates Black people' thing". But to hate, you'd have to actually care. When people observe other groups of people protesting over the unnecessary deaths of young Black Americans and respond with rhetoric like "Black people kill other Black people everyday, so why are they protesting this?", that's basically asking, "Why should we care?" When an entire investigation is based on criminalizing or demonizing the victim so that the person who is suspected in a probable crime isn't held in a negative light, that's showing more care or concern for the perpetrator than the victim. When a witnesses testimony is said to be the most consistent of all the witnesses testimonies, and that witness not only changed his retelling of the events in question, but was first said to be 100 yards away, then 50 to 75 yards away, there is a message being sent. And it is "we don't care".
Here is another "we don't care" quote from the illustrious former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani in an interview he had on Fox News Sunday:
"I don't see how this case normally would even have been brought to a grand jury," said Giuliani, a former prosecutor, on Fox News Sunday. "This is the kind of case—had it not had the racial overtones and the national publicity—where a prosecutor would have come to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to present to the grand jury."
A week earlier on Meet the Press, Giuliani blamed Black on Black crime for the need of a heavy police presence in the Black community. When Michael Eric Dyson challenged him, he said this:
"...the white police officers won't be there if you weren't killing each other."
All too often, we hear this type of justification when the issue of unjustified police shootings or other shootings and brutalities involving black people and police officers or non-Blacks come up. We heard the same type of justification when the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, just to name those two, were being protested. While these statistics may be true, by numbers only, the whole point gets missed by those who spew this nonsensical line of thought. Black people, especially young Black men, are often subject to police brutality, shootings and other forms of violence from non-Blacks with out clear justification. When these cases are reviewed, they are often handled typically; a short investigation, if any, and a swift decision usually in favor of the non-Black aggressor. It seems, also way too often, that any confrontation between Blacks and non-Blacks comes down to a shooting of the unarmed Black person. Just over the past few weeks while we awaited the grand jury decision in Ferguson, an unarmed young Black man, 28 year old Akai Gurley, was shot to death by a police officer while patrolling the stairwells of a project building. The young man and his girlfriend were taking the stairs due to the elevator being out of service. That shooting, which is said to have been an accident, has since been ruled a homicide but is still under investigation. Also, on Saturday, November 22nd, a 12 year old boy, Tamir Rice, was shot within seconds of police arriving on the scene to respond to a call that the boy was waving a gun and pointing it at people. The person who called made it a point to tell the 911 dispatcher that the individual was just a kid and that the gun could possibly be fake. That point was repeated to the dispatcher but apparently was not relayed to the officers responding to the call. It has been said that the officer told Tamir to show his hands but surveillance video shows that the young man was shot within 2 seconds of the officers arriving. This case is a bit difficult in that the officer was responding to a call that was said to involve a person with a gun. But the breakdown in communication between dispatch and the officer and the fact that it was a fake gun leave many questions unanswered.
But if we are going to quote statistics and mince words and all of that, lets look at this perspective. How often do you hear of white unarmed men being gunned down by police? When you hear of police standoffs or manhunts regarding armed white males (most recently Eric Frein), how often are these men shot and killed? The truth is, you don't hear this occurring too often under these circumstances. Why? Well I can only speculate but it has to be related to the image that is often portrayed, relayed and accepted regarding Black men in these United States. Before Trayvon martin was shot, I never saw signs in stores that said "No Hoodies, No Hats, No Sunglasses." There are hashtag movements that were sparked after Michael Brown was shot and the subsequent violent clashes with police like #pantsupdon'tloot. Young black kids have been told that if they sag their jeans then they would not be able to walk through shopping malls and other public places. The word "thug" has been primarily used to discredit those like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Jordan Davis based soley on how they dressed, how they looked, the type of music they listen to and where they either come from or were perceived to come from. When looking up information on Akai Gurley, the first image that popped up was a mugshot along with another picture that prominently showed a tattoo on his neck. His back story was that he shied away from the street life and was about to start a job with the city. He had also been pursuing a modeling career.
When the grand jury decision came with no indictment for Darren Wilson, the District Attorney's press conference seemed to be motivated to discredited the slain Michael Brown and all those who offered accounts supporting him. The same thing happened when a group of NYPD officers in Staten Island, NY killed Eric Garner via an illegal choke hold. The officers claimed that he was resisting arrest in relation to selling illegal cigarettes. Fortunately their was someone videotaping the entire encounter, and if you have seen it, you can see and hear that the police regularly harassed Garner. Once they tried to subdue him, for whatever reason, the choke hold was applied and they turned a deaf ear to his pleas of not being able to breathe. Once the media got involved, the smear campaign was on. So here we have a pattern that we do not see when white males commit violent crimes but we see it when unarmed Black males are shot committing no crime at all (for those who want to say Michael Brown was committing a crime when he stole the cigarillos from the convenience store, Darren Wilson had no knowledge of that until after Brown was already dead. But even stealing cigarellos doesn't warrant being shot to death when you are unarmed.).
I hear people say things like "We're never going to get past race in this country until people stop making everything about race." But everything in this country is about race. Our president is Black and anything said about him, positive and negative, is said and/or perceived through context of race. The fact that our country is over 238 years old and we had our first Black president 219 years after George Washington first took office shows how deeply rooted in race our country is. Race will always be an issue because it was what separated the haves from the have nots for so long. Even now, immigration reform has the face of Hispanic Americans when there are illegal immigrants from all corners of this earth here inside of our borders. Getting past race may be too much for a country so diverse, until the economic distinctions blur racial lines to the point where it is just the uber wealthy and the rest of us. But even that may not ease racial tensions, due to the fact that race is often used to push certain political and social agendas. We can't "wish" it away either, hoping that one day it won't be an issue. People who 'hope for change' have to understand, as sensitive a topic as race relations is in this country, it has to be talked about honestly. Listening to Darren Wilson describe Michael Brown during their altercation sounded like he was told to give as menacing a description as possible so that it would be proliferated throughout the media and that the public opinion would be that Wilson was battling this enraged thug hell bent on killing him. But the details don't add up and it is very obvious that the grand jury was never going to indict Wilson. The indictment would be of Michael Brown, the citizens of Ferguson who protested violently and peacefully and all those who sympathize with Brown, his family and those who feel like police practices and interactions with people of color need to be re-evaluated.
Many say before Black communities can expect change when it comes to the way we are perceived in society, we have to do a lot of changing ourselves. I can agree that there are a lot of issues in the Black community. Charles Barkley said some racial profiling isn't wrong due to the amount of crime that exists in Black communities. There are some young men and women who do fit the profiles that many others place on them. But as a whole, the profiles or stereotypes don't describe an entire community. There shouldn't be a set of "characteristics" that justify injustice, racism or extreme tactics. Michael Brown's personality or character traits didn't justify him being shot down in the street like a dog and left there for over four hours. Eric Garner's personality didn't warrant the deadly force used to subdue him, essentially because he wasn't buying the officer's reasoning on why they were questioning him. So, while change needs to be made within Black communities, it shouldn't dictate how we are treated by authorities, politicians and our neighbors of different races. The simple fact that an argument can be made in this regard shows that a real problem persists amongst those who feel like there are certain rules for certain groups of people. Those rules are usually one set of rules for whites and a series of separate rules for every other ethnic group around the world. In the case of Akai Gurley, different rules of law enforcement for certain areas, like the housing projects of Brooklyn, NY where there is a very high crime rate, leave way too much room for error. I believe that his death may have been the result of an accident. The police officer was relatively new to the force and he was patrolling dark stairwells in the building. Could it have been avoided? I think so, maybe by having seasoned, more experienced officers handle high risk situations such as project building patrols. Individuals close to the case said that Peter Liang, the officer who shot Gurley, was scared during the moments before the shooting. His fear, the instructions and training he had for his patrol (flashlight in one hand and gun drawn in the other) and the reputation those projects have, may all have led to the accidental shooting.
But what can we do? Honestly, I think the only thing we can do is to be honest about the separation that exists in this country. Ben Carson, a possible Republican candidate for the 2016 presidential election, said that race relations in our country have gotten worse under Obama. While that statement is true, his insinuation that it is Obama's fault because he plays the race card too much is not only inaccurate, it's misguided. As I mentioned before, Obama being president is a race card in of itself. You see his Blackness every time you see him on television. You hear his Blackness every time his name is mentioned. You can't get around it. Some people, like Carson, want to say he talks about race too much. People like Cornell West say he doesn't talk about it enough. While many, like me, would like to see him address situations like the Brown case a little more passionately, we can't look to him to be the face of change, at least not anymore. In 2008, we wanted him to be that face, we thought he was going to be that face. But one thing I learned was that the deep rooted racism that many had thought had subsided resurfaced more aggressively the day he took office. While some white Americans had been agreeable to the possibility of a Black president, many felt and still feel that a Black person isn't qualified to hold that position. Change takes more than time; it takes acceptance, patience and tolerance. These aren't things that our country has been known for throughout it's history. But whenever there is a conflict and someone brings up race, the conversation often turns to that itself than to a solution for the conflict. It's because we really want to believe that racism is dead and that we as a society are advanced enough to have moved on from that. It's just not true. Once we as a nation can admit that, then we can work on ways to coexist peacefully with one another entirely. But as long as we try to fool ourselves that the problem doesn't start with our perceptions, on both sides of the spectrum, then the issues that we see in places like Ferguson will not only continue to occur, they will get much, much worse.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Will Ferguson Burn? Awaiting the Darren Wilson Grand Jury Decision
While the news of ISIS, the Ebola crisis and the Republicans "winning" the 2014 midterm elections have dominated the headlines in recent weeks, many of us have still kept a close eye and ear to the news coming out of Ferguson, Missouri. We've been expecting a decision from the grand jury in regards to whether or not Officer Darren Wilson, the man who fatally shot an unarmed Michael Brown, will be charged in the shooting. As the city awaits the decision, which was said to come sometime after November 15th, Gov. Jay Nixon has declared a state of emergency and has activated the National Guard in anticipation of any possible unrest that may occur if Wilson is not indicted. Community leaders and Brown family spokespersons have urged Brown family supporters to remain peaceful in the face of an unfavorable decision. All this leads me to believe that it is more than likely that Darren Wilson will not be charged. What will such a decision mean for Ferguson? Unfortunately, I don't see anything positive coming from this scenario.
In the weeks leading up to this moment, multiple pathologists have said that the autopsies performed by the Saint Louis county medical examiner and by the pathologist hired by the Brown family could support both sides of the story. Officer Wilson told police there was a struggle between him and Brown in his police vehicle and that Brown reached for his gun before Wilson shot him. Some witnesses say Brown was shot multiple times after that initial struggle as he had his hands held up in surrender. The autopsy results show that Brown was shot 6 times, with the fatal shot being to the head. With missing evidence (Brown's clothes was not made available to the family pathologist and only three bullets were recovered from Brown's body) and mixed testimony as to what happened, if Wilson isn't indicted and doesn't go to trail, we may never really know what happened. If Ferguson, whose citizens have rallied around the Brown family for the most part, is left with no answers, I fear the protests and violence that we saw in the beginning will pale in comparison to what will happen next. This will not be in retaliation to what many see as a crime. The protests will be in defiance of a system that is not designed to protect its citizens. Those in Ferguson had already expressed their apprehension with the local police force, and their reactions to initial peaceful protesting did nothing to ease the tension that has been mounting in Ferguson for decades. Sure, the looting and rioting that took place was unacceptable. But as the media descended upon Ferguson and as the citizens took note of the need to curb the sometimes violent expressions of protest, the Ferguson police department decided to ratchet up their show of force by mobilizing tanks and infringing on the rights of the citizens to demonstrate peacefully. Eventually, cooler heads prevailed over the course of several weeks and the confrontations between police and protesters calmed down. But Ferguson didn't stand down and they made sure that the attention grabbing headlines regarding national politics and Ebola didn't overshadow what was still happening out there. It is because of that, the unrelenting spirit of the citizens who have rallied around a cause bigger than them, that we are all anticipating the decision of the grand jury.
These cases are always difficult to assess because, as in the cases with Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis and countless others, the other individual involved is dead. While witness testimony and the testimony of Darren Wilson play a huge part in determining what actually happened, those testimonies are biased on both sides. Without Michael Brown, it is literally he said, she said; Darren Wilson's supposedly first hand account of what happened and then the witnesses accounts of what they say they saw. In this case, however, there was another individual involved, one Dorian Johnson. He was with Brown during the entire incident and he echo's the accounts of what other witnesses say occurred, that Brown was shot initially by Wilson at close range during a scuffle which Johnson says involved Wilson trying to pull Brown into his car by his neck. Two other witnesses corroborate this story along with testimony from Johnson that say once the first shot was fired, both young men ran off. Johnson said he hid behind the nearest car while Brown kept running. It was at this point when Wilson fired a second shot and Johnson says that Brown stop and turned around with his hands up in surrender, telling the officer that he was unarmed and not to continue shooting. Johnson says Wilson shot several more times, killing Brown in broad daylight in the middle of the street.
It is my belief that the only person that has anything to gain here from lying about what really happened is Darren Wilson and the Ferguson police department. Dorian Johnson has nothing to gain and nothing to lose in this case by either lying or telling the truth. Witnesses who have relayed a similar account have nothing to gain or lose. There is said to be several witnesses who support Wilson's testimony but have not spoken publicly out of fear for their safety. These witnesses are said to be Black. In any case, due to the lack of irrefutable evidence one way or the other, this case should go to trail for the sake of Michael Brown, the residents of Ferguson, MO. and yes, for the sake of Darren Wilson. There needs to be transparency, as Ferguson citizens have expressed concern that the grand jury deliberations are too secret and can be manipulated in an attempt to sweep Brown's murder under the proverbial rug. These are genuine concerns because this is something that does actually happen at a regular clip. Remember Eric Garner, the Staten Island, NY man who was choked to death on a city sidewalk in broad daylight, supposedly over illegal cigarettes? If you don't it's because that case is being mired in a grand jury proceeding as we speak. The evidence it is has for review should include video of the incident which clearly shows an officer applying an illegal choke hold while Garner was on the ground. Meanwhile, in both cases and cases like them, the victims are subject to assaults on their character, to discredit the fact that they were potentially treated improperly by law enforcement and that their deaths could have been avoided. In other words, those who are supposed to enforce the law were the ones that ended up breaking the law and committing a crime. Instead of trying to prove whether a crime was committed, these cases are often reduced to trying to prove that one was not.
Whether Darren Wilson gets tried or not really underscores the problem, which is the continuous tensions that arise in Black communities between its citizens and the police departments employed to serve them. All too often, regardless of the circumstances, the officers are either not charged or eventually acquitted of all charges during the trail process. There are officers that act with impunity, knowing that if their actions come into question, they will be protected by "the shield". Law enforcement officials are often given the benefit of the doubt due to the dangerous nature of their job. Yes, they come in contact with criminals everyday and they lay their lives on the line every time they put on a uniform and step out of their homes. Their families often wonder will they see them at the end of the day. This should not go unnoticed. But what should also not go unnoticed is the fact that young, Black men in many urban communities leave their homes under the same circumstances. Most of these young men are not violent men, yet they are subject to sort of a blanket scrutiny that society has placed on them. Ben Stein argued that Michael Brown was armed with "his big, scary self" and that is what lead to Darren Wilson shooting him. When comments like this are used to defend a man who not only carries a gun to do his job, but is also trained to use that weapon in discretion and only when his life is legitimately in danger, then there is a bigger problem that is not being addressed. It is the perception of the young black male in not only the eyes of the people but in the eyes of those trained to differentiate between threats and non-threats. An even bigger issue is the lack of value society has for the lives of these young men. Until those issues are addressed, it won't matter if Darren Wilson is charged and goes to jail or not because there will be many more Wilsons and Browns to come and just as many more protests, civil and uncivil.
In the weeks leading up to this moment, multiple pathologists have said that the autopsies performed by the Saint Louis county medical examiner and by the pathologist hired by the Brown family could support both sides of the story. Officer Wilson told police there was a struggle between him and Brown in his police vehicle and that Brown reached for his gun before Wilson shot him. Some witnesses say Brown was shot multiple times after that initial struggle as he had his hands held up in surrender. The autopsy results show that Brown was shot 6 times, with the fatal shot being to the head. With missing evidence (Brown's clothes was not made available to the family pathologist and only three bullets were recovered from Brown's body) and mixed testimony as to what happened, if Wilson isn't indicted and doesn't go to trail, we may never really know what happened. If Ferguson, whose citizens have rallied around the Brown family for the most part, is left with no answers, I fear the protests and violence that we saw in the beginning will pale in comparison to what will happen next. This will not be in retaliation to what many see as a crime. The protests will be in defiance of a system that is not designed to protect its citizens. Those in Ferguson had already expressed their apprehension with the local police force, and their reactions to initial peaceful protesting did nothing to ease the tension that has been mounting in Ferguson for decades. Sure, the looting and rioting that took place was unacceptable. But as the media descended upon Ferguson and as the citizens took note of the need to curb the sometimes violent expressions of protest, the Ferguson police department decided to ratchet up their show of force by mobilizing tanks and infringing on the rights of the citizens to demonstrate peacefully. Eventually, cooler heads prevailed over the course of several weeks and the confrontations between police and protesters calmed down. But Ferguson didn't stand down and they made sure that the attention grabbing headlines regarding national politics and Ebola didn't overshadow what was still happening out there. It is because of that, the unrelenting spirit of the citizens who have rallied around a cause bigger than them, that we are all anticipating the decision of the grand jury.
These cases are always difficult to assess because, as in the cases with Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis and countless others, the other individual involved is dead. While witness testimony and the testimony of Darren Wilson play a huge part in determining what actually happened, those testimonies are biased on both sides. Without Michael Brown, it is literally he said, she said; Darren Wilson's supposedly first hand account of what happened and then the witnesses accounts of what they say they saw. In this case, however, there was another individual involved, one Dorian Johnson. He was with Brown during the entire incident and he echo's the accounts of what other witnesses say occurred, that Brown was shot initially by Wilson at close range during a scuffle which Johnson says involved Wilson trying to pull Brown into his car by his neck. Two other witnesses corroborate this story along with testimony from Johnson that say once the first shot was fired, both young men ran off. Johnson said he hid behind the nearest car while Brown kept running. It was at this point when Wilson fired a second shot and Johnson says that Brown stop and turned around with his hands up in surrender, telling the officer that he was unarmed and not to continue shooting. Johnson says Wilson shot several more times, killing Brown in broad daylight in the middle of the street.
It is my belief that the only person that has anything to gain here from lying about what really happened is Darren Wilson and the Ferguson police department. Dorian Johnson has nothing to gain and nothing to lose in this case by either lying or telling the truth. Witnesses who have relayed a similar account have nothing to gain or lose. There is said to be several witnesses who support Wilson's testimony but have not spoken publicly out of fear for their safety. These witnesses are said to be Black. In any case, due to the lack of irrefutable evidence one way or the other, this case should go to trail for the sake of Michael Brown, the residents of Ferguson, MO. and yes, for the sake of Darren Wilson. There needs to be transparency, as Ferguson citizens have expressed concern that the grand jury deliberations are too secret and can be manipulated in an attempt to sweep Brown's murder under the proverbial rug. These are genuine concerns because this is something that does actually happen at a regular clip. Remember Eric Garner, the Staten Island, NY man who was choked to death on a city sidewalk in broad daylight, supposedly over illegal cigarettes? If you don't it's because that case is being mired in a grand jury proceeding as we speak. The evidence it is has for review should include video of the incident which clearly shows an officer applying an illegal choke hold while Garner was on the ground. Meanwhile, in both cases and cases like them, the victims are subject to assaults on their character, to discredit the fact that they were potentially treated improperly by law enforcement and that their deaths could have been avoided. In other words, those who are supposed to enforce the law were the ones that ended up breaking the law and committing a crime. Instead of trying to prove whether a crime was committed, these cases are often reduced to trying to prove that one was not.
Whether Darren Wilson gets tried or not really underscores the problem, which is the continuous tensions that arise in Black communities between its citizens and the police departments employed to serve them. All too often, regardless of the circumstances, the officers are either not charged or eventually acquitted of all charges during the trail process. There are officers that act with impunity, knowing that if their actions come into question, they will be protected by "the shield". Law enforcement officials are often given the benefit of the doubt due to the dangerous nature of their job. Yes, they come in contact with criminals everyday and they lay their lives on the line every time they put on a uniform and step out of their homes. Their families often wonder will they see them at the end of the day. This should not go unnoticed. But what should also not go unnoticed is the fact that young, Black men in many urban communities leave their homes under the same circumstances. Most of these young men are not violent men, yet they are subject to sort of a blanket scrutiny that society has placed on them. Ben Stein argued that Michael Brown was armed with "his big, scary self" and that is what lead to Darren Wilson shooting him. When comments like this are used to defend a man who not only carries a gun to do his job, but is also trained to use that weapon in discretion and only when his life is legitimately in danger, then there is a bigger problem that is not being addressed. It is the perception of the young black male in not only the eyes of the people but in the eyes of those trained to differentiate between threats and non-threats. An even bigger issue is the lack of value society has for the lives of these young men. Until those issues are addressed, it won't matter if Darren Wilson is charged and goes to jail or not because there will be many more Wilsons and Browns to come and just as many more protests, civil and uncivil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)