Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Black Lives Matter- What Steps Can We Take?: Sunday's Anniversaries of Oppression

Every 28 hours, an African American is killed by police.

Sunday was worth marking for several reasons. For one, it made seventy years since a civilian population was last subjected to a nuclear attack- in 1945, some fifty thousand defenseless people were cruelly murdered in Nagasaki, and their deaths were weighing heavily on my mind.

For another, it was a year since the murder of Mike Brown and the emergence of the St. Louis resistance to police violence against People of Color.

As a white girl who has never braved the police even with the protections my identity affords me, guilt is obviously the first thing on my mind. I see an injustice- a massive pattern of injustices, and I've not risked anything trying to oppose it, even futilely. Maybe someday I'll be brave enough.

It's more productive to talk about those who are brave- the scores of comrades marching and sitting with Dr. Cornell West, after hearing his visionary speech Sunday night. He wove a masterful rendition of the need to address race and class oppression in the same movement, and it was amazing to hear him speak. The warmup speakers were great as well- focused a lot on whether or not the church could still be an ally of any progressive movement, particularly in bridging generation gaps within the Black community. I'm always troubled by overtures to ally with forces I regard as destructive, including Religion, but in this case I have to have a certain respect for the enemy of my enemy: the Black church wouldn't be the target of as much violence and repression as it is if it weren't something of a threat to parts of our racist system.

I went to the speech to listen and read- especially anything that might look like a legislative program that could be partially enacted at the state or local level. Most of us have heard a lot about two improvements- body camera surveillance of arrests and less weaponry for police departments which would certainly be an outstanding start towards ameliorating police violence against minority communities, but seem far short of the kind of comprehensive plan needed to begin checking centuries of racist practice and assumptions. The Ferguson PD, just to name one example, has returned to its old tricks of disproportionately targeting Black families with arbitrary fines and arrests, inflicting unemployment and violence on many. Body cameras won't fix all of that.

A pamphlet by a Civil Rights group called “Change is On Us” or “ONUS” - http://changeisonus.org/about/blog/ - was being distributed, with a 13 point program. Also, last Thursday, Bernie released his racial justice platform, and I wanted to plug both of these in some detail.

ONUS plan

#1-5- standardizes incident reporting across all American jurisdictions- every officer's reports will be in the same place which will also record patterns of which demographics the officer in question prefers to target, allowing instant transparency for every police officer in the country. This would document the patterns and make weeding out the most rotten apples a bit easier- we could see particular trouble spots and the most visible manifestations of the racist culture of policing.

#6- deputizes more attorneys, and gives them the power to initiate Civil Rights suits against law enforcement abuses.

#7- forever bars an officer fired for bias from working anywhere else in law enforcement, ending the revolving door we see in Balkanized municipalities like St. Louis where a high profile offender leaves his job and then gets another in a different municipality up the street.

#8- imposes burden to preserve life and prevent injury on arresting officers.

#9 gives the victim's family choice of investigators from a state-licensed team.

#10- empowers this investigator to present evidence directly to a grand jury- this bypasses the local County Prosecutors who are naturally close to the cops they're here asked to monitor or even prosecute.

#11- gives victims' families choice of prosecutor from a state-licensed list.

#12- provides for speedy removal of law enforcement agents deemed unfit.

#13- requires the Justice Department to create an office of Civilian Oversight and Accountability.

I must say I like the sound of it, and nearly all the proposals can be championed at the state or local level

Sanders' plan is significant as well- I love that from the getgo it starts on deescalation through community policing and demilitarization of police departments. The demilitarization can begin whenever the president wishes it, as he has generally has final discretionary authority over what weapons are sold out of the service. Community policing is a manyfold goal: draw officers from the community they will be policing and get them to maintain their involvement in the areas under their jurisdiction in gyms and community events and the like. Sanders also calls for a new federal standard in police training. His other plans include requiring public reporting of all police shootings and deaths in police custody, adjust training to incentivize non-lethal approaches, federal funding for body cameras, and pegging police department subsidies to reductions in disparities. Many of the positive steps here will require an act of Congress, but the Justice Department in particular has a great deal of regulatory authority at its disposal in these matters, and I trust Bernie to improve the situation with or without Congress.

What's also critical is the mass disenfranchisement of Voters of Color, and Sanders calls out the United States for allowing a patchwork system that often subjects African-Americans to 7 hour lines at polling stations in majority-minority communities, purges millions of voters from the rolls because of past or suspected felonies, universal voter registration and access to early voting.

Sanders' statement here really needs to be quoted in its entirety “If current trends continue, one in four black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during their lifetime. Blacks are imprisoned at six times the rate of whites and a report by the Department of Justice found that blacks were three times more likely to be searched during a traffic stop, compared to white motorists. African-Americans are twice as likely to be arrested and almost four times as likely to experience the use of force during encounters with the police. This is an unspeakable tragedy.

Addressing Legal Violence

  • We need to ban prisons for profit, which result in an over-incentive to arrest, jail and detain, in order to keep prison beds full.
  • We need to turn back from the failed “War on Drugs” and eliminate mandatory minimums which result in sentencing disparities between black and white people.
  • We need to invest in drug courts and medical and mental health interventions for people with substance abuse problems, so that they do not end up in prison, they end up in treatment.
  • We need to boost investments for programs that help people who have gone to jail rebuild their lives with education and job training.”

Sanders goes on to hit his stride in talking about the directly economic side of racism, and points out that his antipoverty platform is particularly relevant to the struggle for equal rights.



Addressing Economic Violence

  • We need to give our children, regardless of their race or their income, a fair shot at attending college. That’s why all public universities should be made tuition free.
  • We must invest $5.5 billion in a federally-funded youth employment program to employ young people of color who face disproportionately high unemployment rates.
  • Knowing that black women earn 64 cents on the dollar compared to white men, we must pass federal legislation to establish pay equity for women.
  • We must prevent employers from discriminating against applicants based on criminal history.
  • We need to ensure access to quality affordable childcare for working families. “
I don't usually quote so heavily, but I was inspired to do so by my favorite news source (AlJazeera America) actually denying that it exists, I thought some direct quotes would be important.



I really hope the Sanders campaign can be a useful vehicle for these proposals- unfortunately the debates for the Democratic nomination don't start until October, and with everyone from MSNBC to Markos Moulitsas to Nate Silver trying their hardest to destroy Bernie, we've got a lot of work to do between now and then. I promise to keep up a steady stream of Sanders coverage here-



But we should never lose sight of the people who are being killed every day or those who are sacrificing their freedom to protest the killings. All across my native south and in much of the rest of the country, Black and Brown lives are systematically devalued. The proposals I've reposted here are something of a starting point as far as specific strategies are concerned.



It's still a bleak reality, and one that I as a white person, don't have to live with every day. That alone should be frightening



Solidarität, Genossinnen und Genossen.

15 comments:

  1. Honestly I would like to comment and provide a perspective of someone who has family in law enforcement (on a SWAT team), but I feel that myself and my family would be attacked instead. While the Black Lives Matter is an important movement and certainly some issues need to discussed and addressed, but I feel that doesn't allow other perspectives. I don't participate in discussions because of this. People get offended by #AllLivesMatter or #CopsLivesMatterToo , so I don't see how progress can be made not including everyone or other groups in the discussion.

    Respectfully,
    Elliot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Several questions. So, what exactly is keeping other issues from being addressed? What community in this country, other from our Black comrades, loses someone to police violence every 28 hours? Who is saying that police don't matter? Is the idea of holding police accountable for excessive force somehow offensive? Honestly, interpreting a call for better, fairer, safer policing as an attack on all cops sounds like the ultimate insult- are you saying that the people you say care so much about all engage in this sort of violence against Black People? Most BLM supporters I know start with the bad apples, and there are many high profile cases, but the BLM movement is built in response to the fact that police violence against African-Americans is a much bigger issue than personally racist police: it's about what systems we have in place to value which lives, and encouraging which behaviors.

      Saying "Black Lives Matter" doesn't devalue anybody, it affirms that contrary to the social conditions and cultural reinforcement of this country, our Black Comrades still have rights, are still human beings, and deserve far better than what we're giving them.

      Delete
  2. I feel that most people are not appreciative of the fact that members of the police put their lives at risk to protect the public, it is a tough job, yes they are signed up for it, but their lives matter too. While I understand the intent that "Black Lives Matter" isn't meant to devalue anybody, but it gives off the impression that the law enforcement's lives don't matter. People need to understand both sides addressed in order to make progress.

    While there are clear cases of excessive force, it is important not group everybody in one group.

    You want debate about changing the system.

    You yourself said "You want the right to speak? then show that you can listen. And I don't mean stand around bored while someone speaks: I mean actually consider what they are saying.

    I would like the opportunity for you to consider what I am trying to say. It is one thing to mischaracterize my statements because you have an axe to grind, but
    I find it deeply offensive that assume something and attack my family without knowing them or their views.

    I get that people are angry, but violence in Baltimore against police was unacceptable. Burning and throwing rocks at Police vehicles and throwing rocks at police and firing bullets at police in unacceptable.

    My goal is not to change your mind, my goal has always been to have civilized discussion. Do you really want to try to understand what law enforcement and their families go though? Do you want to know why SWAT is important part of public safety? Do you want to why deadly force is used and there isn't any other alternative?

    If you do we can continue and I can try to answers your questions








    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How on earth does it devalue police lives to say that we want an end to the unjust regime of violence and killing?

      Also I don't remember saying those particular words, where was it?

      So, some throw stones, and the BLM movement becomes the offender? That's Fox logic, Genosse. I'm not saying anything against police other than that the system produces police violence against African-Americans, and we should all care about stopping the attacks and the cultural view of race that incentivizes law enforcement's campaign of persecution against our Black comrades. Nor is the movement. By identifying police interests inextricably with the violence, it seems to me that you're making things harder for everyone, including them.

      You of all people, so fond of the right to self-defense, aren't extending that right to everyone. Because you seem to condemn the most significant Civil Rights movement of our time for no reason than a few people refusing to submit to gassing and concussions immediately after police lynched a man. So if not now, when would it be acceptable for one of our Black comrades to defend her or himself?

      I assure you I'm not intentionally mischaracterizing anything. I'm just noticing a pattern- you like guns for defense against scary people (http://grahamkrueger.blogspot.com/2012/07/gun-control-is-necessity.html). You don't like any election systems that allow for minority candidates to win office http://grahamkrueger.blogspot.com/2014/07/recent-complications-in-our-federal.html. Now you're grasping at straws to dismiss the demands of a popular movement, the future of the Left, and shifting the burden of proof away from the system that needlessly kills hundreds of people yearly because of the color of their skin, onto the people fighting against it... Seems this is a weak spot.

      How have I attacked your family? And how is it civilized to pander to the Fox narrative of heroic police saving us from our neighbors, scenes straight out of "Birth of a Nation"? There's nothing civilized about devaluing our Black comrades like that.

      Delete
  3. First of all you are intentionally mischaracterizing positions. I would like it for you to stop it.

    "How on earth does it devalue police lives to say that we want an end to the unjust regime of violence and killing?

    Also I don't remember saying those particular words, where was it?"

    First of all I don't accusing you saying anything. There are members of the law enforcement community that feel the risks that they take are not appreciated. They risk they lives to protect others.

    I feel if America had an open inclusive debate about that the issue on hands, we can move forward. BLM is important and good for America, but we also need to discuss different perspectives.

    Bad apples are a problem. We have to find solution to problems together.

    "By identifying police interests inextricably with the violence, it seems to me that you're making things harder for everyone, including them."

    Again misidentifying my position. Some of the protesters were nasty. The police were trying to the keep the peace.

    I do support the right to self-defense. Baltimore was bad. I am all for peaceful protests, but tensions boiled over, and things turned violent. Attacking the police was not right. Self defense is allowed on confines of ones own home.

    "few people refusing to submit to gassing and concussions immediately"

    That may be how the media portrayed the protests turned violent. Burning and throwing rocks at Police vehicles and throwing rocks at police and firing bullets at police in unacceptable.

    "Because you seem to condemn the most significant Civil Rights movement"

    Since LBJ is one of my heroes, I deeply offended that you are attacking me. I think the Civil Rights acts and the Voting rights act was the crowning achievement for LBJ. I don't understand why wanting to have conversations is "condemn[ing] the most significant Civil Rights movement"

    I want to be able to defend myself in case of a home intruder who would be scary person. Because I don't want to keep reelecting my Congressman for life, I am against safe districts for incumbents since this allows them to focus on a certain amount of people or hardly any people to get reelected.

    I never dismissed the demands of BLM, I just want to discuss different perspectives and find a solution working between everybody.

    "that the people you say care so much about all engage in this sort of violence against Black People?"

    "the people you say care so much about" I interpreted that to remark about my family which I find unacceptable.

    You think it neighbors, who burn and throw rocks at police vehicles and throwing rocks at police and firing bullets at police in acceptable? This not some Fox "News" narrative, I know this because I have someone in my family who witnessed this happening.

    You are intentionally mischaracterizing things over having a real discussion. I draw the line when you attack my family.





    ReplyDelete
  4. Look, your my friend, but I feel you are intentionally mischaracterizing positions instead of asking for clarification and attacking my family which I find deeply offensive. It is gotten to the point that I won't talk to you ever again if don't apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The protests I went to were nothing short of heroic: unarmed people, far braver than I am, putting their lives on the line to defy a system of violence and murder.

    Don't you think identifying cops' personal interests and well-being with their ability to murder Black people at will is offensive? Because that's what it looked like you did here- saying any system that stops them from doing so is somehow unfair and harsh.

    Johnson is one of my heroes too. I rather think he would be offended at being held up as a reason to condemn a movement for social justice. When he saw the riots in 67 and 68, he responded with the Fair Housing Act and appointing more progressives to important positions, to begin peacefully meeting the needs of the workers, not condemning the protestors.

    I'm not going to label anything out of bounds as long as it furthers awareness of what we as leftists are up against. This has been an issue-based discussion in which we both have drawn on our experiences. Should a fissure result, your voice will be missed. Based on a record in which one- supports the killers of Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown, opposes all measures which allow African-American candidates to win office, and accuses supporters of equal rights of somehow devaluing the police that kill them, I think we can say that there's a problem here, and that's sad.

    May the Force be with you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Nobody attacked your family and no one attributed anything you said to an intent to deceive.

      Delete
    3. Look, the way, you said the comment below, implied to me that you were attacking my family: "people you say care so much about". Please apologize, or explain what you meant.

      "you saying that the people you say care so much about all engage in this sort of violence against Black People?

      Honestly,

      Delete
  6. Honestly I find deleting my comment expressing my concerns is pretty petty. You are not allowing me to explain your distortions of my comments. So you to find someone else to attack.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Honestly, you should consider what I have to say seriously.

    The way you treat people, distorting their comments, and not letting them respond is disrespectful to them and yourself and it alienates them from you. The whole thing about being liberal to me is being able to express your views to others and have a civil discussion. I tried to give you an alternate perspective and you choose to distort it, attack me and my family instead, and deliberately preventing me from explaining myself.

    This clearly has not have been an issue-based discussion in which we both have drawn on our experiences. Disagreeing with me is fine, but what the way to you are treating me is wrong.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Nobody attacked your family and no one attributed anything you said to an intent to deceive."

      You did attack my family. Distorting my view is something I also have problem with. You have misattributed almost everything I said with the intent to deliberately deceive and distort my words.


      Delete
  8. This is my last attempt to reconcile with you. Should you delete any prior comments that I made to explain myself, not apologize for at least wording a response that I interpreted on attack on my family, I will not comment anymore, and consider that I feel that we are not friends since my voice wouldn't be missed and I can't get through to you.

    I all wanted to have is civilized discussion, but you intend to deliberately deceive and distort any words I say. If you remove any of my comments, it just proves to yourself, me, and anyone else that you are not willing to tolerate other people's views and hear them out. I am feel sad about.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This has never been a personal discussion, it has been a discussion of political goals, which you have filled with accusations against the character of those who disagree with you, and claims that we're somehow out to get your family for our political views. Charges like these are grandiose and embarrassing, and really have no place in a discussion on the merits. Should you offer a further argument beyond claiming I'm somehow trying to destroy you and incite violence against your loved ones, it will be respected and engaged with.

    You seem to have set yourself up as the arbiter of my intentions here, while we will always afford you the benefit of the doubt as to your own intentions, and merely interact with the statements provided. No I will not apologize for advancing an argument in support of the BLM movement, though I certainly regret any pain you experienced as a result of this encounter.

    ReplyDelete