Let’s be honest about racism. It’s here. And it’s not going anywhere. But its prevalence is surprising, again, if we’re being honest: we’ve been under the mistaken impression, for some time, now, outside the ghetto, outside poverty-stricken areas and urban centers (I’m using white code for places that black people live) that America is a fundamentally just society. We thought that we had judicial mechanisms sufficient to satisfy all segments of the population – if not equally, at least on some kind of sliding scale. We thought racism was on the downswing. Black comedians, rappers, and religious authorities seemed to be ministering to the disproportionate attention young black men attracted from police. Culturally, we’d accepted, on a broad level, that being black meant that you were more likely to go to prison or have trouble with law enforcement. We accepted similar things about the Hispanic population, and rarely thought anything about the Native American communities – they were wisely placed on reservations many years ago, and given responsibility over themselves, which meant that what happened to them was their fault, and not ours. Recently, the proverbial chickens have come home to roost. We’ve seen behind the curtain. And the truth is this: while the punishment and social opprobrium have discouraged certain obvious forms of racism, racism itself is as thick on American life as pond scum on a still pond.
When I was in Afghanistan, one of the most remarkable lessons was that justice, and governance, were largely arbitrary – matters of aesthetics. One village would be ruled by a pro-government militia (Afghan Police and Army rarely patrolled, much of what we called “government controlled” land in Afghanistan was, in fact, militia controlled). The militia would collect taxes of 10% or 15% from the population, and would take responsibility for adjudicating tribal disputes. In other words, they acted like the Police, and tribal mechanisms (elders, etc.) acted like our judiciary. Another village, across a road, or some other terrain feature, would be ruled by the Taliban. The Taliban would collect taxes of 10% or 15% from the population, and would take responsibility for adjudicating tribal disputes using Sharia law – a Mullah would interpret crimes and, having established guilt or innocence, would impose punishment based on the Koran.
Whether a village accepted militia or Taliban rule was a combination of self-interest, security, group preference, and other variables that I do not claim to have understood, as an outsider. The important takeaway, for the purposes of this article, and understanding the role justice plays in our own society, is that literally any mechanism was preferable to none, and that the role of “justice” was to keep the peace, was to ensure social stability, and an absence of strife or struggle within a given community. Otherwise, war resulted. Without justice, tribes would go to war against one another over disputed resources, in a heartbeat. This was the situation on the border of Pakistan, territory the government didn’t even have the strength to dispute in 2007, let alone manage.
Our American justice system has been failing for a while, now, and the only reason it hasn’t been more obvious is that it’s only been failing certain portions of the population. For those individuals who are angry about this fact – that it took the well-publicized deaths of three consecutive black men under suspicious circumstances, and the refusal of a Grand Jury to acknowledge what our eyes and ears have shown reasonable people to be true – all I can say is that one knows what one knows. I can’t take responsibility for the past, but I can acknowledge the present, and agree with the obvious, logical assessment that things are not correct, things are not just. The system is creating unrest where it should be resolving unrest. The American justice system – and American society in general – is, in as fundamental a way as one can imagine, broken.
The problem is not the police. I take great exception to the wealth of anger and opprobrium heaped upon our policemen and policewomen. The police are here to enforce our social standards, and they do so, quite effectively. Instead, we should be observing our own actions, and looking in the mirror to assess whether or not the problem lies within ourselves, the people of America. When you see a group of young black men, does part of you worry, does it provoke some nameless anxiety that is not felt when you’re around a group of young white men? When you’re sitting at a bar and a black man walks in, do you react differently from when a white man enters? Do you see a group of Hispanic people at a bus stop or in a parking lot and immediately draw conclusions about them, their motivations, their histories?
Of course you do. And when a young black man who stole a $5 pack of swisher sweets cigarillos from a convenience store is shot by the police, when you breathe a silent sigh of relief: “one less scumbag who might get rape my wife and blast rap music loudly,” that’s not an indictment of the police, that’s the police doing what you hoped they’d do. Ditto the hell-kid with the pistol replica, and the criminal giant who was blackly and horribly selling loose cigarettes for profit, illegally, on a street corner. Not in my town, you think. Motherfucking property value killing monkeys.
You can lie to me all you want, and you can also lie to yourself, if that’s important to maintaining whatever fiction you’re perpetuating. But a lie is a lie, and the truth is this: you’re fine with the police hassling black people, because you think black people are criminals, and you want the police to hassle criminals. I feel the same way. We’re in a safe place here, we can be honest with each other. I’m scared on the train when black and Hispanic people get on board on Bridgeport or Stamford – they rarely have tickets, and always have some cock-and-bull story about misplacing it, or moving seats, or who knows what. My hypothesis? They’re on the train to rob employed (this is white code for “white”) people of their money and tickets.
So – but it’s too obvious, now, that’s the real problem with Ferguson and Eric Garner and “I can’t breathe.” The jig’s up – people know who we are (white people, and specifically white men), and they know what we want, because they see our desires accomplished through our police. We need to make a change, so people stop rioting and burning the franchises that white people own, like CVS and Rite Aid and Family Dollar. We need to give the blacks justice – even if that means occasionally sacrificing a police officer to a kangaroo court. After all, this is really about our safety, and our ability to hold onto the grudges and stereotypes we cherish. If we don’t feed the occasional officer to the wolves, it’ll all be too obvious, and we’ll actually have to change how we think about black people, and women, and Mexicans, and Chinese, and homosexuals. Police officers understand why they get paid overtime and hazardous duty – it’s not so they should be safe – they’re keeping us safe. And sometimes that means we have to hang a police officer up high, by the neck, to prevent the rabble from rioting, from getting on the train and stealing and looting and burning.
Oy. Where to start.
I suppose if the American justice system is so “broken”, then we can model ourselves after other countries, like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, Egypt, Liberia, Brazil, Iran, Mexico, Syria or another bastion of peace and justice. But, of course, we hold ourselves to a higher standard.
So, we could go to the opposite end of the spectrum and be like Norway; which condemns a man that killed 77 teenagers with 21 years in a camp like “prison.” That might be more fair.
I understand many people think that when people do wrong, it was society that caused them to be that way. I’m sure in some cases, it’s true. But in others, it definitely is not. Humans do have free will and we are not complete automatons that act according to the whims of society.
The most recent situations give me so many questions:
Was Mike Brown shot because he was black, like millions of people believe? Or was he shot because he attacked a police officer and grabbed his gun? Which witness accounts were supported by the scientific evidence and which were not? Who tried to turn this into a racial incident and why did they do it? Is there any hard evidence that Officer Wilson shot Mike Brown because of his race? These are questions that the Grand Jury hopefully asked themselves before making their choice. Maybe they had more evidence than the general public had?
More questions: Was Eric Garner choked to death because of his race, or did he die of a heart attack which was, at least partially, caused by his own poor life choices, such as breaking the law at least 30 times (based on his arrest record), resisting arrest and being obese?
One thing I do know: in this world, actions have consequences. If I attacked a cop, tried to grab his gun and he shot me, would he have done so because of my race? When a black cop shoots and kills an unarmed white, Hispanic, or Asian male, is there a similar uproar? Why or why not? Some may argue that this is comparing apples to oranges, and I can understand that.
Will stereotypes always exist? Of course. Do people judge others based on race more than other physical traits? Who has it worse: a black man, or a dwarf? Are obese women treated as well as super models? Are they judged the same?
So many questions, but I do know one answer: Will the world ever be just or fair? No…it won’t.
I can appreciate the liberal world view that all humans are good and that society is what oppresses and causes them to do bad. It seems so nice but it also seems as if the world and people and reality are a whole lot more complex than that.
When people see the world through their particular lens and automatically assume that a person was killed because they were of a certain group, then some of those people will take to the streets and march for “justice”, even though the facts and all the scientific evidence don’t support their view. And even though it’s obvious that certain media outlets, politicians and lawyers are totally biased and certain family members are completely delusional, it won’t occur to them that they are being whipped into a frenzy based on faulty evidence for someone else’s agenda.
I would hope that people could try to look at every situation individually, without biases or preconceived notions and judge them based on the evidence and with an open mind without jumping to conclusions.
But this assumes that man is or will ever be a rational animal, and he most surely is not and never will be.
Three questions:
1) If we know that people won’t act rationally, that they’ll act out of emotion, and that the closer a person is to an emotional event, the more passionately they’ll act, isn’t it the system’s responsibility to create time and space between an event and action? Isn’t that the real purpose of the justice system – to allow passions to diffuse, and to render a decision that is accepted as socially legitimate by all?
2) The doctrinal purpose of the police (and I’m paraphrasing here, using their useful motto) is to protect and serve – protect public property, and ensure public safety. If violent confrontations in the ghetto with minor criminals who are selling loose cigarettes for change or stealing $4 packs of Swisher Sweets lead to widespread protesting and violence that results in millions or tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue and tax dollars, as well as numerous other deaths and extended social disruption with potential for worse violence – have the police actually protected and served?
3) Aren’t crooks and con-men like Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel evidence that white systems and white leaders have very little emotional credibility with the black community? Why is that? Why don’t white communities protest as much when this sort of thing happens?
You can probably imagine my responses to these questions, and you’re probably right, so I won’t furnish them. I am interested in hearing your thoughts.
1.) I had always thought the purpose of the justice system was to enforce the law, regardless of the court of public opinion. A decision that is deemed “socially legitimate by all” is impossible, because all people will never agree and some people are not swayed by scientific evidence and facts and/or are delusional and in denial. (Like Mike Brown’s supporters and his family) The system has a way of removing chronic law breakers and violent people from society. Of course, mistakes and made and they should be remedied. Then again, I’m not a lawyer.
2) I disagree with your premise that Mike Brown and Eric Garner were “minor criminals.” Certainly, they weren’t Ted Bundy, but we do know that Mike Brown was a violent felon based on video evidence and we know that Eric Garner had 31 arrests going back 35 years, including arrests for assault, resisting arrest (that one was a habit) and grand larceny. Why are these two individuals upheld as something they clearly were not by their supporters? How can the police be held responsible for the widespread violence and looting by their supporters? Should police just let people go if they resist arrest? Shouldn’t the people that loot and burn be held responsible for their actions? Did the police make them do it? Did the police cause Mike Brown’s stepfather to order a crowd to “Burn this bitch down” repeatedly? If Mike Brown and Eric Garner didn’t resist arrest, would they still be alive?
These seem like more logical questions, to me.
3.) Dunno the answer to this one.
1) The police are definitely supposed to enforce the law, but overall, our superior Western justice system is actually there to interpret the law – one of the reasons that a routine traffic stop can turn into a major Supreme Court case, which has huge ramifications in society and culture (MIRANDA V ARIZONA).
So for the police, though, yeah, their job is to enforce existing laws. But isn’t it more than that? If you put it in military terms, break it down by task and purpose, it actually looks like this:
TASK: Uphold the law, apprehend and punish lawbreakers.
PURPOSE: keep public property safe, keep people unharmed, allow law-abiding people to go about their daily lives without having to worry about violence to self or household.
So if in enthusiastically accomplishing their task, the police partially or completely fail their purpose, whatever they’re doing is a failure, as well.
To the point about social legitimacy – I think you’re confusing “happiness” with “legitimacy.” Whenever someone loses in court, I’m sure they’re not happy about the outcome. So long as they abide by the decision – by going to prison, or paying a fine, or obeying a court-order – they view the decision as legitimate. And by and large, most of society views most of the legal decisions that come out of our court system as legitimate all the time – either actively by obeying the decision and doing what the court has demanded, or passively by continuing to live in America without resorting to rebellion or revolution to change the system in a way that would advantage them. When a large group of people begin protesting, they’ve entered into the first step toward something more serious, and an individual question becomes social. The fact that the protests are happening means that they must be treated seriously, or they will get worse and lead to worse things.
2) Someday soon, we will have the technological capability to have the equivalent of a policeman on every corner and on every train, and every 500 meters or so, to ensure that everyone’s driving the speed limit with cars that haven’t been stolen. Also in your car to ensure nobody drives drunk or tailgates or cuts you off in the tollbooth line or traffic, and the hallways of buildings to ensure that people aren’t using illegal drugs or playing music loudly on weeknights. Those police – or those devices – should be legally required in every building and every home, because like yourself, I believe in the just and equal treatment of every citizen under the law. It’s a noble vision – if we all pitch in, we can accomplish it within our lifetime. The law, and justice, will be perfectly fair, and everyone will be held responsible – immediately – for all of their actions.
If Mike Brown and Eric Garner had been “serious” rather than “minor” criminals – say, rapists, murderers, or serial-killers (as you posited), don’t you think the police who killed them would be viewed as heroes rather than pariahs? No – Brown and Garner were petty criminals, minor lawbreakers. If they were arrested 31 times or 1000 times for public nudity or drunkenness or thuggish behavior, that wouldn’t change the essentially trivial nature of their crimes. And yes, I do care much less about trivial crimes than serious crimes, because it threatens me in a different way.
On a large scale, it all comes down to efficiency. What you want is a system where we’re not wasting money or resources on things that lead to greater violence, or social instability. Right now, it seems like we’re paying for social insecurity. How dumb is that?
Well, I think we can all agree that American society is so racist that we would never have a black President, a black Attorney General, or a black National Security Adviser, or a black Secretary of State. That won’t happen and if it did, the President would never be reelected after his first term.
Now you’re talkin’ my language! Totally agree. You’ve offered unassailable proof that we’re living in a post-racial society. And because I feel happy about the black people in government, as a white man, it’s evidence that I, personally, am not a racist – which is a comforting thought when I see ten young black men get on the Metro North at Bridgeport without tickets and worry about my safety.
Totally!
Thanks, I do what I can.
Although I’m not sure what liberals mean by a “post racial America.” It sounds utopian to me and like another one of their fantasies that won’t come true.
And I wouldn’t feel too guilty or ring your hands too much because you feel in danger when a group of people get on a train without paying. It just seems like a natural self defense instinct, regardless of their race.
Thanks for your responses.
You’re almost certainly correct about that utopian idea not coming true. I’d bet the house on it. That’s why it’s important to manage the problem responsibly – rather than providing solutions we know will lead to violence.
We can certainly agree that we live in a country where two people can disagree and defend their viewpoints, and I appreciate yojr engaging mine. All best to you, sir.