Skip to main content

Not much new under the Sun

The protests against police brutality, centered around the cases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, have forced race into the consciousness of most Americans. Those who support the protests focus on the pattern of abuse that they represent. Those who stand in opposition of the protests tend to focus on the specific details of each killing, becoming armchair lawyers and ballistics experts. Black America sees the police killings as symptoms of systemic racism. White America, for the most part, wants to see the killings as unfortunate but isolated events divorced from racist factors. Indeed, racism isn't a thing, right?

Here's an excerpt from a blog that seems to exemplify the view of the latter group:
[T]he shooting is being used to prove a point about police discrimination in America. The means of distribution are simple: destruction of private property and interference with commerce. In other words, brute thuggery and ignominious acts of violence. 
Note the assumption that all protest necessarily must be violent. What's frustrating to me as I read more about the Civil Rights movement in the 50's and 60's---and what's so sad for people who express views like this---is that this sentiment and even the specific arguments are so very unoriginal. This author probably thought that they were penning original thoughts based on sound logical arguments. But check out what I just read in The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks:
The [1963 Washington D.C. march] itself now is remembered in a nostalgic glow as an inspirational and quintessentially American event, but at the same time, it was dreaded and feared by many white Americans. In a Wall Street Journal poll taken in the days leading up to the march, two-thirds denounced the idea as "un-American." Most newspapers, as well as many politicians, predicted violence...Even when the fears of violence proved unfounded, the Wall Street Journal remained critical: "This nation is based on representative Government not on Government run by street mobs, disciplined or otherwise." 
Again, Black people protesting must portend violence. Mobs then, thugs now. Back then, the Civil Rights movement terrified white America while it was happening. Very few saw the racism that drove Black people to march and protest. Very few white people saw the big deal. It's the same today as it was then. 

Fifty years later, every white liberal wants to tell you they were there marching hand-in-hand with Martin. Keeping an historical perspective is useful in understanding what is happening in Ferguson and around the country, and how historical events are viewed very differently while in progress compared to later on. I've been to several Boston-area anti-racism/anti-police-violence protests and I've witnessed zero violence from the protesters. The marches are peaceful and powerful. The cars and trucks stopped honk in support more often than in anger, particularly from drivers of color. But, of course, this doesn't matter. When Black people gather in large numbers, white people start seeing violence, whether real or imagined.

It seems only logical that anyone wishing to criticize this movement should at least go see one for themselves rather than relying on second-hand accounts filtered through popular media and their myopic Twitter feeds. But as with so many arguments and world views, when racism enters the room, logic jumps out the window. 

There's a revolution happening right now. How big will it be? How far-reaching will it go? What will result from it? History hasn't been written yet, but I'm cautiously optimistic as I  march and join in. If you have ever thought about what you would have done during the Montgomery bus boycott, or the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, or if you would have been in D.C. that summer day in 1963, now is your time to find out what you'd do during a Civil Rights movement. Will your role be parroting the views of Wall Street Journal editorials written by racists 50 years ago. Or will you honestly get to claim that you were on the side of social justice at this key juncture in history? 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An annual note to all the (NSF) haters

It's that time of year again: students have recently been notified about whether they received the prestigious NSF Graduate Student Research Fellowship. Known in the STEM community as "The NSF," the fellowship provides a student with three years of graduate school tuition and stipend, with the latter typically 5-10% above the standard institutional support for first- and second-year students. It's a sweet deal, and a real accellerant for young students to get their research career humming along smoothly because they don't need to restrict themselves to only advisors who have funding: the students fund themselves!
This is also the time of year that many a white dude executes what I call the "academic soccer flop." It looks kinda like this:


It typically sounds like this: "Congrats! Of course it's easier for you to win the NSF because you're, you know, the right demographic." Or worse: "She only won because she's Hispanic."…

Culture: Made Fresh Daily

There are two inspirations for this essay worth noting. The first is an impromptu talk I gave to the board of trustees at Thatcher School while I was visiting in October as an Anacapa Fellow. Spending time on this remarkable campus interacting with the students, faculty and staff helped solidify my notions about how culture can be intentionally created. The second source is Beam Times and Lifetimes by Sharon Tarweek, an in-depth exploration of the culture of particle physics told by an anthropologist embedded at SLAC for two decades. It's a fascinating look at the strange practices and norms that scientists take for granted.
One of the stories that scientists tell themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, is that science exists outside of and independent of society. A corollary of this notion is that if a scientific subfield has a culture, e.g. the culture of astronomy vs. the culture of chemistry, that culture is essential rather than constructed. That is to say, scientific c…

The Long Con

Hiding in Plain Sight

ESPN has a series of sports documentaries called 30 For 30. One of my favorites is called Broke which is about how professional athletes often make tens of millions of dollars in their careers yet retire with nothing. One of the major "leaks" turns out to be con artists, who lure athletes into elaborate real estate schemes or business ventures. This naturally raises the question: In a tightly-knit social structure that is a sports team, how can con artists operate so effectively and extensively? The answer is quite simple: very few people taken in by con artists ever tell anyone what happened. Thus, con artists can operate out in the open with little fear of consequences because they are shielded by the collective silence of their victims.
I can empathize with this. I've lost money in two different con schemes. One was when I was in college, and I received a phone call that I had won an all-expenses-paid trip to the Bahamas. All I needed to do was p…