Police Brutality & Black Lives
Photo credit to infotel.ca
As a white, cisgender woman of privilege I recognize my ineptitude to write about this topic conclusively. I also recognize that I would be remiss to let this momentous era in history pass by in silence. So I will, at least, bear witness to the violent events unfolding around us, acknowledge the deep roots of racism and implicit bias undermining true progression in our society, and participate in the uncomfortable dialogue necessary to enact change. Hopefully, I will learn something new and become a better ally in the process.
George Floyd’s recent death in Minneapolis is now recognized as the catalyst for a new age civil rights movement, sparking protests in all fifty states across the country. After witnessing the unjust and controversial deaths of numerous people of color over the last several years, including Trayvon Martin, Philando Castile, and Breonna Taylor, yet another cruel homicide became the final straw to break the camel’s back. For the past three weeks, activists have taken to the streets in support of equal rights for people of color and in objection of police brutality. Zealous demonstrators continue to march through cities, not only in the US, but around the globe, chanting slogans like “Hands up, don’t shoot!” and “Say their names!” while carrying signs that call for justice.
Others, inciting criticism from President Trump and peers, have vandalized both city and private property by breaking windows, starting fires, and decapitating Confederate statues whose removal has been a point of contention for years. These rioters, though few in number, have also torched police vehicles, spray painted monuments, and looted local businesses. As a result, both peaceful and violent protest actions alike have been associated with the Black Lives Matter Global Network, an organization established in 2013 with the intention of “build[ing] local power” to “eradicate white supremacy.” Unfortunately, although the group’s website clearly states, “We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements,” both Black Lives Matter and those who support it are under much criticism for the controversial actions of some in relation to their cause.
In my opinion, considering what’s trending in the news, there are five key arguments by non-supporters discrediting Black Lives Matter and the political movement for equality it inspires. These criticisms stem from those who miss the point entirely (hashtag “All Lives Matter”), those who lump peaceful and lawful protesters in with opportunists and extremists, those who conveniently forget the United States’ history of violent change, those who criticize George Floyd as a symbol of black injustice, and those who question why police brutality against whites doesn’t spark parallel outrage. I believe understanding these arguments and revealing the ways in which they fall short is critical to moving forward.
Image via dezeen.com
Let me attack the “All Lives Matter” issue first. I believe these words come from good-intentioned, though misguided people, who fail to recognize the inherent flaw in their argument. “All Lives Matter” misses the mark (much like the word “colorblind”) when discussing race by negating the fact that some people are treated differently than others because of their skin color. Black Lives Matter aims to underscore the fact that, not only is the world not “colorblind,” but that it also turns a blind eye to disproportionate suffering in the black community. I’m not sure why anyone feels the need to pull the spotlight away from people calling for help, but it strikes me as both immature and selfish, like the toddler who cries because a sibling is getting more attention.
In January, a tremendous effort was made to rescue koalas from Australia’s devastating bushfires. Volunteers began driving by affected areas in their cars carrying water and towels to rescue the endangered marsupials while others farther away donated to local koala hospitals and organizations that protect wildlife. Everyone was able to agree that current events were devastating. I didn’t see a single self-righteous Facebook post demanding, “But what about the sugar-gliders?” And I think it’s important to question why that is. Because most people have an understanding that even in the direst circumstances, like when more than a billion animals are dying, sometimes rescue must prioritize those who need it most. It’s not to say caregivers didn’t want to save other animals, but they were pretty fucking focused on koalas, and with good reason.
Yet, for some, taking actions that fall within life’s morally grey areas is unfathomable. These are the people who claim protesters and rioters are always one in the same and that any form of protesting provides an opportunity for criminals to do things like loot Target in Austin, Texas. Big inhale. Okay, firstly, if you are unable to differentiate between philanthropists who have organized stand-ins and marches to encourage social reform and rioters who take advantage of the current political climate and use the protests as a guise to cause mayhem, I seriously question your critical thinking skills.
Photo credit to drool.pet
This world is home to all kinds of people, all of whom have extremely diverse motives. It would be a mistake to lump everyone in a singular category and call it a night. Not only does this way of thinking negate the benevolent efforts people are making to bring about necessary change, but it’s also a childish perspective. As kids, we learn black and white thinking: what’s right and what’s wrong. Because kids, well, kids’ minds are still developing and both thinking critically and navigating life’s grey areas are challenging demands. So we simplify. As adults, though, we’re expected to wield more mental flexibility than a child. We’re expected to understand nuances, varying opinions, and how circumstances can manipulate the morality of a situation.
For example, I understand the argument that it’s unfair to local business owners to have their windows broken and that smashing police vehicles exacerbates an already tense relationship between the force and civilians. I also empathize with the repressed anger of a group of people who have been victimized and oppressed for generations going back hundreds of years and see why that stored energy may present itself aggressively. I am able to reconcile both the idea that peaceful protesters and opportunist criminals can exist separately and the simultaneous idea that people are multifaceted and exist imperfectly (so they can exist within one being too). All individuals possess both yin and yang and history would be hard pressed to find a wholly pacifistic or wholly homicidal political figure.
Poetically enough, acknowledging the inherent fallibility of mankind brings me back to my initial point. I do think the majority of people supporting Black Lives Matter are in favor of a peaceful revolution, despite the media showcasing the darker moments of today’s political unrest. Yet, while violence does exist to some degree and while it does create confusion, people must be mindful that although the morality of individuals’ actions may become convoluted during the protests, the ultimate goal never should be. Racism has no place in the hearts and minds of officers expected to serve and protect. Remember, just because twenty or thirty people looted Target doesn’t mean that that minority group represents all demonstrators and it certainly doesn’t make police brutality any less concerning.
Considering violence from another lens, though, one that implies aggression and destruction serve a purpose in dismantling failing systems thereby creating space to assemble new ones, I think we should talk history. It would be naïve to suggest all significant change in this world comes about peacefully and in the US alone we have enough war monuments to prove it. For example, it’s pretty safe to say the Patriots would never have defeated England in the fight for independence had they not been willing to pay the ultimate price. Sometimes, people just can’t agree and those in power are rather consistently reluctant to give it up. So where does that leave us philosophically – when is violence an acceptable means for inciting change?
Image via m.washingtontimes.com
I think that's a tricky question to answer. I’m not sure it ever is acceptable, but rather unavoidable.
Violence is always unfair to someone, but it’s often still a necessary evil in the right context. Think Animal Planet. Nature demands equilibrium, the ultimate balance of contrary forces. The fox must eat the rabbit in order to survive. Thus, in this world, violence does have a place and those who completely denounce this inevitable truth deny reality.
When discussing current events, we must not remember only the convenient parts of history, especially when comparing the original civil rights movement with Black Lives Matter. While it is true Martin Luther King attempted to use peaceful protests and civil disobedience to enact change, he also accepted his efforts would be met with resistance and violence, even when that resistance put innocent lives in danger. In fact, it’s arguable that the effectiveness of the entire civil rights movement as a whole depended on this cruel retaliation by white supremacists as a means of revealing the deeply ingrained hatred directed at people of color.
Currently, society is seeing similar reprisal by law enforcement towards protesters supporting Black Lives Matter as was seen during the 1960s towards protesters supporting MLK. As per usual, the government chooses to mask violence committed by law enforcement as “protection” and depicts protesters as dangerous mobs in order to incite fear and panic, quell the masses, and suffocate the call for change. It’s a racist dictator’s favorite move in chess. If a corrupt government can cause enough confusion and chaos, it becomes difficult to discern who’s right and who’s wrong in the standoff between protesters and police. Then, the fearful will side with the oppressor, who they incorrectly believe can and will protect them, thus maintaining a political system that exploits its citizens.
At times like these we must be vigilant. Look, I’m sure there were some people acting out in the 1960’s too – doing whatever the equivalent of robbing a Target was back then, but those events don’t make the history books. Years from now, when we look back at what went down in 2020, the focus won’t be on the controversial actions of the few, but the righteous actions of the many, and I’m sure it will be evident that the formula for change wasn’t completely homogenous. Peace will hopefully be the primary ingredient, sure, but violence will have certainly made its debut, especially considering the ways in which police have incited aggressive behavior with the use of unnecessary force.
In the meantime, while history sorts itself out, I won’t pretend it isn’t poetic justice that Confederate statues are literally losing their heads. The black community politely advocated for their removal for years to no avail and, certainly, there shouldn’t have been any debate. A country should commemorate its most noble and honorable leaders, not slave owners who led the South to secede from the nation like Robert E Lee. These statues emblemize white supremacy and half the country’s bloody battle to maintain it, just like the Confederate flag. The Confederacy existed for a measly four years so one really has to question why we’re still waving a traitorous flag over a hundred and fifty years later. Besides, when comparing a lifetime of harsh, physical labor and oppression, the tearing apart of families, the rape of men and women, and punishments as severe as lynching, toppling a few statues seems pretty peaceful, doesn’t it?
Photo credit to facingsouth.com
Now, let’s move on to the recent defamation of George Floyd’s character, a.k.a., one more tactic used to undermine social change. Unfortunately, I think it’s pervasively common to villainize people of color who have been unfairly killed by police in order to justify their deaths. I said what I said. It makes murder go down just a little easier and serves to make people more comfortable with violence.
That all being said, denial is a hard habit to kick. I get that it’s quite the mind-fuck to accept that powerful groups like the police don’t really serve and protect everyone impartially because it interferes with the mind’s concept of how the world should work. I also understand it’s hard to swallow the fact that by buying into and supporting the fallacy of fairness, one can be indirectly culpable for violence caused to others. Nevertheless, using George Floyd’s history with drugs and theft to suggest he somehow isn’t “good enough” to represent Black Lives Matter is misguided at best.
In reality, Floyd’s history doesn’t matter. Regardless of the person he was, his death is not justifiable. History has a habit of highlighting the convenient sides of political figures to serve a purpose, i.e. teaching people that Lincoln was a hero who “abolished” slavery (despite the fact that he had only political and not humanitarian intentions), or that George Floyd was a criminal and thus his death was defensible and therefore, there's no need to change the status quo. Plain and simple, though, the man used a twenty-dollar bill that he may or may not have known was counterfeit and was suffocated for nine minutes. It was a stupid reason to be arrested in the first place.
Now, it may seem to the untrained eye that George Floyd's name is being glorified because it is being chanted in protests, written on posters, and blasted all over the news. The truth is, though, that his death was a catalyst for much needed reform. The goal is not to imply that he was a model citizen to be emulated. Instead, his face and name have become symbols for the violence and injustice people of color face systemically in our society. The mural being painted in his honor and the funeral service conducted in his name are tributes to all innocent black lives that have been lost, hence the white chariot. It isn’t about making him specifically a martyr, even if he became one coincidentally.
The point protesters are trying to make is that these people didn't deserve to die and by making excuses about a person's past mistakes, we miss the point entirely and sacrifice a critical part of our humanity: our empathy. It seems blatantly obvious that police need reform and that racism runs rampant in society like a bull in a china shop so the fact that the argument even exists at all that this recent case may not be a valid example of why change is necessary is simply confounding.
Image via twincities.com
This brings me to my final point; we should all be heated about police brutality. Yet, when George Floyd died on May 25th at the hands of four officers, people immediately retorted to calls for justice by questioning why the public doesn’t get as pissed about white deaths. In fact, I feel like whenever anyone mentions the Black Lives Matter movement at all, it is immediately discredited by the claim that white people are victims of police brutality too, as if violence committed against whites somehow cancels out violence committed against blacks or as if violence against one group isn’t okay, but violence against everyone is. Yet, if anything, more unfair killing should theoretically just get everyone more pissed off, right? So what gives?
The first and most obvious reason I believe society tends to get more inflamed about police brutality against people of color comes down to statistics. Apart from racial injustice being a damned legacy brothers and sisters have had to endure for generations, a black person is also nearly three times more likely to be killed by police than a white person, despite making up a mere thirteen percent of the population. So it goes back to the koalas thing.
On the other hand, I also think there may be another, more telling reason why people seem less vexed by police brutality against white people. I think white deaths lack the intersectionality black deaths exemplify. It’s not just that the black community has a history of suffering; it’s that the black community continues to be oppressed in all avenues of life, not just when dealing with law enforcement. As a society, we know black students are less likely to graduate than their white peers, that black people have a greater chance of ending up in prison, and that there is a high concentration of poverty within the black community. So wouldn’t it make sense that the combination of these factors paired with the disproportionate cases of police brutality involving people of color that the world would see higher numbers on the public outrage Richter scale?
Not to mention, I think we are forgetting how much disdain Americans have for people in poverty. We even created a dreadful title for those with a less fortunate socioeconomic status, “the lower class,” as if these people are somehow less valuable, less worthy human beings. In all honesty, this country has a very disconcerting bias towards people who struggle financially – so much, in fact, that we often hear the argument that the poor are lazy, immoral, and criminals deserving of reaping what they sow, so much that public assistance programs are often shamed and condemned, and so much and medical care isn’t made equally accessible to all.
Taking all of this into mind, I wonder – and I’m just spitballing here – if the white community is less enraged by white deaths at the hands of police because most white people don’t identify with the victims. Could it be a simple case of being unable to switch shoes? Within the black community, it is, however regrettably, normal to experience poverty, racism, and unfair treatment in the face of the law. Yet, this isn’t the case with the majority of people within the white community. The white population tends to possess more wealth, experience very few issues related to race, and often receives superior treatment when facing criminal charges. (Looking at you, Brock Turner). Could it be that because the black population relates better with the victims experiencing police brutality, it generates more outrage and more support?
Photo via theguardian.com
It is certainly possible, though that philosophy fails to account for why many Latinos oppose Black Lives Matter, despite communally experiencing similar issues regarding discrimination. I suppose that’s the irony though; those who accuse supporters of the movement of being racist inadvertently reveal their own unconscious bias, even if it’s directed inwards as much as outwards. In fact, one of the arguments I often hear is that Latinos experience prejudice too, but they don’t complain as much. This makes me wonder if naysayers respect groups who quietly tolerate injustice rather than those who vehemently oppose it due to an ingrained belief that minorities should be submissive and grateful. Either way, regardless of who you are, negating the necessity to support the fight for equality suggests both a wanton understanding of history and a deep discomfort with shifts in power that beckons many questions.
Anyways, regardless of personal beliefs and whether or not the majority of people support Black Lives Matter, it is unquestionable that the protests popping up all over the nation are indeed inciting change. Since the end of May, the officers responsible for killing George Floyd have been charged with second degree murder, the FBI has opened an investigation into Breonna Taylor’s death, several cities are beginning the process of defunding police and redirecting funds to youth programs, mental health, and social services, and Confederate statues are coming down. Furthermore, several states are initiating wide scale police reform including banning chokeholds and mandating officers to use body and dash cameras. The NFL’s commissioner Roger Goodall also admitted the organization was “wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier,” NASCAR and the US navy banned the flying of the Confederate flag, Quaker Oats is removing racist stereotype Aunt Jemima from its brand, and Band Aid is finally going to make medical supplies in different colors.
Now, while I recognize it isn’t time to jump for joy yet (because if we’re really being honest, these changes are too few, too late), I do find some solace in the fact that the nation is at least scuttling in the right direction, like a dog with its tail between its legs. Yeah, it’s about fucking time. Even if being a Black Lives Matter supporter is controversial now, one day history will be much clearer than it is currently in the midst of pepper ball clouds and rubber bullet rain. And I feel pretty confident we already know who is standing on the right side.