Ferguson and New York City are embedded in the back of our minds as we hustle in finishing assignments and preparing for finals. Over the past few weeks the grand juries in Ferguson and New York City have decided against indictments in two cases of police brutality. Protestors saw these cases as examples of institutionalized and systematic racism that led to this police brutality. Some saw these cases as divisive and called protestors "race baiters" or accused them of using the "race card." Social media was also buzzing with chatter such as, " If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Why didn't I think of that? It's so simple and easy. Silly me. Except for the fact that issues such as race, law and power structures do not have a simple and easy history in the United States, in fact we have a pretty complex and often violent history with those topics. You probably have seen a couple posts that state, " The system cannot fail those it was never meant to protect." Before you go deleting those Facebook friends consider this, they may not be wrong. Those who take offense with this quote and with protestors assume that the law is just and equally applies to all. That would be so great, except for when there are disparities on how certain people are treated under those laws by enforcers of those laws. Laws may be in place but it does not mean they are fair or enforced fairly.
Let us first discuss how systematic oppression is in fact real and has lasting effects for generations to come. Americans cannot have such short term memories regarding our own history. Let's not forget that Black men did not have the right to vote until 1870 under the law. Yet even when the law permitted these men to vote, there were systematic barriers in place such as literacy tests to disenfranchise them so that they could not vote. Fast forward to the Supreme Court case of Plessy V. Ferguson where it was established that "separate but equal" was constitutional thus legitimizing segregation under the eyes of the law. The concept behind "separate but equal" was that yes Black and White individuals should be provided equal accommodations yet they did not have to be provided these equal accommodations together. There are many obvious problems with this, one of them being that the law was not enforced as such. An example is in education. Schools built for White children and schools built for Black children were meant to have the same accommodations, yet this was not the case. Black schools were often further away from predominantly black neighborhoods thus many children dropped out of those schools. There were laws set in place that if a school has less than let's say ten students enrolled in it , it would not be funded thus closed down. I mean the law was meant to protect equal accommodations but it did not do so and was not enforced to do so. We are still seeing the lasting effects of such cases.
Let us first discuss how systematic oppression is in fact real and has lasting effects for generations to come. Americans cannot have such short term memories regarding our own history. Let's not forget that Black men did not have the right to vote until 1870 under the law. Yet even when the law permitted these men to vote, there were systematic barriers in place such as literacy tests to disenfranchise them so that they could not vote. Fast forward to the Supreme Court case of Plessy V. Ferguson where it was established that "separate but equal" was constitutional thus legitimizing segregation under the eyes of the law. The concept behind "separate but equal" was that yes Black and White individuals should be provided equal accommodations yet they did not have to be provided these equal accommodations together. There are many obvious problems with this, one of them being that the law was not enforced as such. An example is in education. Schools built for White children and schools built for Black children were meant to have the same accommodations, yet this was not the case. Black schools were often further away from predominantly black neighborhoods thus many children dropped out of those schools. There were laws set in place that if a school has less than let's say ten students enrolled in it , it would not be funded thus closed down. I mean the law was meant to protect equal accommodations but it did not do so and was not enforced to do so. We are still seeing the lasting effects of such cases.
Brown V. Board of Education did strike down the constitutionality of "separate but equal" within the school system in 1954 yet the damage had been done. Educational disparities are still evident and present in predominantly Black schools versus predominantly White schools to this day. When there are educational disparities there are disparities in opportunities and the ability to move up socio-economically. Well that makes the American Dream just a little bit tougher to grasp huh? Laws and how these laws are enforced do have lasting effects so do not discard the concept of systematic oppression, racism or obstacles. Black people in the United States have every reason not to trust the legal system or people in authority systems, just look at it from a historical framework.
"I do not know who I am , but I do know who I am not."
What about the psychology of police brutality and why might Black populations be more at risk? Well the objectification and criminalization of Black bodies has been present in the United States since times of slavery. When Black individuals were brought to work as slaves in building cities such as New Orleans, people tried to justify slavery by saying that Black bodies were more well equipped to endure heavy labor than White bodies. In history violence, brutality and oppression have often been justified by "othering" a population or claiming it is "different". Edward Said, author of Orientalism theorized that humans need this concept of an "other" to define their own identities. "I do not know who I am , but I do know who I am not."
Moving on, let's talk about protesters. It would be easy to point fingers at protestors, but again don't forget that civil disobedience has been this nation's greatest tool in challenging unfair laws and practices in order to progress. Examples are The Boston Tea Party and the Civil Rights Movements. During the Boston Tea Party property was destroyed and it was violent in nature, but it lead to the American Revolution.
Don't get me wrong police officers are not the enemy, they can be honest men and women who want to serve and protect citizens while upholding the law. The institution however has major need for reform. We would also be very ignorant in believing that police officers do not hold a certain amount of power and where there is power there is a high chance that the power may be abused. Shouldn't there be a check to people who hold power? Especially when an unarmed individual is killed by someone who wears an uniform of authority. The problem is that within our legal system cases involving possible police misconduct usually do not get an indictment. No one is saying that police officers are always guilty but shouldn't there be a trial to determine that? At least a trial? I'm sure we all agree that unchecked power is dangerous, so why not hold officers accountable? A trial could even help prove an officer's innocence. Isn't it the least we can do when a life is lost? Especially when there are contradictory accounts of the event? If a trial is so unfathomable an idea then maybe let's set up checks on police power so that violence may be avoided. A suggestion by President Obama to combat possible police brutality is body cameras that would be worn by police officers. The cameras would be able to record not only the police but the citizen(s) involved, it would be a two way street. I don't love the idea of body cameras because a camera clearly did not do much good in the case of Eric Garner, although it did show the clear misuse of power by the authorities. Body cameras also would mean pumping money into the patriarchal and abusive institution that committed these atrocities. We really need a full fledged reform of the justice system. Policies such as stop and frisk need to be examined carefully. Eyewitness testimonies are a clear cut example of ineffective policing since they are proven to be incredibly unreliable but are still often used as a major component of a case. I also think that more transparency and accountability in our legal system would protect all citizens.
Yes, events such as the ones in Ferguson and New York City are divisive,but they do not have to be. Many having been asking, "Ok, let's say I believe you about this systematic oppression thing. What do we do about it?" The first step to recovery is always is admitting there is a problem. If we as Americans can check our own privileges and realize how we all benefit from the system at the possible expense of others, we are moving in the right direction. If we can not identify there is a problem then we are unlikely to find possible solutions to it. Possible solutions such as educating officers on unintentional biases they may have and how to control their own reactivity to these biases.
Next time you want to accuse someone of using the "race card" maybe it is best to stop and think that race is important to talk about. The "race card" might be vital in bringing up issues with the system in place. The "race card" might be the most powerful card in bringing about discourse, since the deck is stacked and the house almost always wins. - Imaan
*Disclaimer: I identify as a person of color but I am not Black and do not wish to adopt the struggle as my own. As a woman of color who is also Muslim I face my own struggles but do not claim to own the struggle of those who are Black, but I did want to write on a topic that I feel very passionately about as a form of solidarity.
Don't get me wrong police officers are not the enemy, they can be honest men and women who want to serve and protect citizens while upholding the law. The institution however has major need for reform. We would also be very ignorant in believing that police officers do not hold a certain amount of power and where there is power there is a high chance that the power may be abused. Shouldn't there be a check to people who hold power? Especially when an unarmed individual is killed by someone who wears an uniform of authority. The problem is that within our legal system cases involving possible police misconduct usually do not get an indictment. No one is saying that police officers are always guilty but shouldn't there be a trial to determine that? At least a trial? I'm sure we all agree that unchecked power is dangerous, so why not hold officers accountable? A trial could even help prove an officer's innocence. Isn't it the least we can do when a life is lost? Especially when there are contradictory accounts of the event? If a trial is so unfathomable an idea then maybe let's set up checks on police power so that violence may be avoided. A suggestion by President Obama to combat possible police brutality is body cameras that would be worn by police officers. The cameras would be able to record not only the police but the citizen(s) involved, it would be a two way street. I don't love the idea of body cameras because a camera clearly did not do much good in the case of Eric Garner, although it did show the clear misuse of power by the authorities. Body cameras also would mean pumping money into the patriarchal and abusive institution that committed these atrocities. We really need a full fledged reform of the justice system. Policies such as stop and frisk need to be examined carefully. Eyewitness testimonies are a clear cut example of ineffective policing since they are proven to be incredibly unreliable but are still often used as a major component of a case. I also think that more transparency and accountability in our legal system would protect all citizens.
Yes, events such as the ones in Ferguson and New York City are divisive,but they do not have to be. Many having been asking, "Ok, let's say I believe you about this systematic oppression thing. What do we do about it?" The first step to recovery is always is admitting there is a problem. If we as Americans can check our own privileges and realize how we all benefit from the system at the possible expense of others, we are moving in the right direction. If we can not identify there is a problem then we are unlikely to find possible solutions to it. Possible solutions such as educating officers on unintentional biases they may have and how to control their own reactivity to these biases.
Next time you want to accuse someone of using the "race card" maybe it is best to stop and think that race is important to talk about. The "race card" might be vital in bringing up issues with the system in place. The "race card" might be the most powerful card in bringing about discourse, since the deck is stacked and the house almost always wins. - Imaan
*Disclaimer: I identify as a person of color but I am not Black and do not wish to adopt the struggle as my own. As a woman of color who is also Muslim I face my own struggles but do not claim to own the struggle of those who are Black, but I did want to write on a topic that I feel very passionately about as a form of solidarity.
Our favorite satirical news correspondent, Jon Stewart was speechless regarding the Eric Garner grand jury decision. Watch below: