Thank you for trying, GideonTJones. I’ve been listening, and I appreciate your reminders about how discussion of police militarization, in relation to the killing of Michael Brown and the related protests, distracts and depletes from a focus on the actual and currently more pressing issue in Ferguson, and elsewhere – anti-black racism.
Most of the discussion in this thread really amounts to “white center-staging” all over again (not to mention, evidence that most commenters here haven’t read Derailing for Dummies).
Then he goes back to the clip of the unarmored, un-camoed, sidearm-only cop yelling “bring it, you fucking animals,” and very clearly wraps up with an argument that militarization is only part of the problem, and that the larger problem, which subsumes both racism and militarization, is an us-versus-them mentality on the part of police.
That doesn’t really make sense. I was specifically responding to the assertion that militarizing the police had “done nothing to increase their mistreatment of Black people,” as SWAT raids have demonstrably increased the mistreatment of black people, compared to the time just before police started becoming militarized (in the late 80’s). I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say.
It’s certainly easier to misrepresent the arguments of other people (who are literally saying that they respectfully disagree with Gideon) and to question their motivations (they must be racist to disagree with a black man!) than it is to simply argue about the facts of the matter. This also simplistically pretends that there aren’t a lot of black people who disagree with each other on the root causes and best responses to Ferguson, along with most every other issue regarding race in America.
Solid point. It’s amazing and frightening how even those who oppose the actions of police brutality still can’t empathize with the black experience in this country unless they are black.
Take all the fancy military equipment away and you still have the grandchildren of the KKK running police departments throughout the country.
So when you talk about demilitarizing the police, you’re not simply talking about removing APCs and sniper rifles, but removing other things that police have long used (and which militaries haven’t used for a long time). I don’t think that’s what most people mean, nor do I see John Oliver alluding to them when talking about militarization.
Again, this is a means of which to marginalize the minority voice and the primary issue: “you’re only free to engage with us on what we have decided the most important issue is.”
If they have demonstrably done so, please cite statistics that demonstrate this. @GideonTJones has indicated that DOJ stats show no increase in black deaths at the hands of authorities during the recent period of militarization, and people have repeatedly said that SWAT raids have just changed how black people are mistreated, and not how much they’re mistreated.
Start bringing facts, then. And lots of white people seem to be “respectfully disagreeing” with Gideon even though they have no apparent foundational basis for their disagreement. No personal experience of how minority communities are treated, no experience on how this has or has not changed with time, little or no historical awareness of these issues, etc. But it’s OK because they’re shouting him down with respect and because some black people have different opinions, too. (Hey, some black people use the N-word, too!) Well, I guess that shows that these uninformed opinions are just as valid as anyone else’s.
It is widely known that policing tactics across the country often unfairly target communities of color—the recent controversies surrounding stop-and-frisk programs in numerous cities across the country document the ineffective and unfair racial disparities associated with the practice.100 According to the incident reports studied in the course of this investigation, the use of paramilitary tactics appears to be no different.
If numbers killed remain stable and numbers raided and imprisoned rise (as they have), it follows that black people are being mistreated in different ways andmore often. More black people are going to prison. More black people are having their residences raided by SWAT teams. These are not disputed facts.
Done. Your turn.
Ignoring the facts presented doesn’t make them go away.
That you consider a group of divergent opinions to be “shouting” indicates a sensitivity to disagreement that isn’t conducive to constructive conversation. That you equate pointing out divisions in the black community with justifying the use of racial slurs makes me think you’re either high or still in school. Gideon does a fine job of making his points and he hasn’t seen the need to suggest that the people who disagree with him are racists. I don’t think he requires your clumsy support.
And I have much better things to do. So, you can respond to this, but I’m through. Adios amoeba!
And lots of white people seem to be “respectfully disagreeing” with Gideon even though they have no apparent foundational basis for their disagreement.
Granted I skimmed most of the replies, but it seems to me that everyone agreed with Gideon that racism is the main issue here, the only point they differ on is whether it’s the only issue worthy of discussion.
I’m sorry… I don’t get that from @GideonTJones comments in the past few weeks at all. His point is that we are being derailed in this militarization of the police issue from what he feels is the real issue, which is the history and current state of racism in America. He’s got a good point there, even if I do think that the mlitarization of the American police is an issue that needs to be addressed. He at no point, that I’ve seen at least, has he said that we need to switch the roles and make whites the oppressed class. He’s saying that in order to fully understand what’s going on in Ferguson, you need to be fully cognizant of race in America, historically and now. We need to actually talk about racism, understand how it functions, and fully accept our racist past and present. I agree we need to do that, especially if at some point in the future, we are going to finally move into a society that isn’t based on this sort of poisonous view of humanity.
Moreover, understanding that history and present doesn’t in anyway diminish you. Having empathy for the pain and suffering of others, I believe, makes you a better person.
Sorry to put words in your mouth @GideonTJones if I did. But that is what I get from what you’ve been saying here - eyes on the prize and all that.
It may, in your opinion, logically follow, but that doesn’t mean it’s a fact.
No one is disputing that there has been an increase in SWAT raids or that minorities are disproportionately targeted. Minorities are also disproportionately targeted in things like traffic stops (unmilitarized, and used as a pretext to search and criminalize minorities), stop and frisks (unmilitarized, but increasingly used and resulting in rising incarceration) and the greater war on drugs (most of which is unmilitarized and also results in rising incarceration numbers): just about every fucking police tactic disproportionately targets minorities, and SWAT raids are just the latest incarnation of this. In other words, more black people are going to prison because we continue to disproportionately target them in all contexts, both militarized and unmilitarized, and the drug wars, broken-windows policing, and zero-tolerance have only increased incarceration rates. Black incarcerations would still be up even if militarized arrests were excluded from the calculus. How does this show that militarization—and not racist policies—are responsible for the increase in criminalization? Again, it’s just another tool in the vast police arsenal, and not a tool that uniquely targets minorities.
But that’s exactly what the ACLU quote you used says: paramilitary tactics are “no different” than other non-militarized tactics in terms of how they target minorities. So how does this quote help prove that things are demonstrably worse under militarization?
When I first read this thread he was the sole voice of dissent and was being told to stop being divisive, to consider building coalitions, and some were saying he was insulting his opponents (but in apparently without suggesting they were racists). Comments directly opposing him and telling him he was wrong about militarization received multiple “likes” while his posts had zero or none. Apparently that was constructive conversation.
[quote=“aikimo, post:94, topic:39395”]
That you equate pointing out divisions in the black community with justifying the use of racial slurs makes me think you’re either high or still in school.[/quote]
If you can’t understand that members of the black community have informed opinions about what affects their community in ways that outsider don’t, then I don’t know what to say. And if some black people think that militarization is the problem here, and not racism (I haven’t seen any black person actually say this, though), I don’t think this automatically validates the near unanimous opinion of BB commenters that militarization is the problem. I mean, look at the chart Xeni posted earlier about how the black and white communities haven interpreted Ferguson differently: does the fact that 18% of blacks think the police are doing a good job investigating the shooting mean that the 52% of whites are right to think the same thing?
Gideon’s probably been made well aware of the perils of being an angry black man, and I’m not speaking for him (he’s more than capable of expressing himself and he does it in ways that I never could) any more than you’re speaking for Brainspore or anyone else whose position you agree with.
I’m sorry if you think that I’m saying that people here are racists, but I do think they are—intentionally or not—reinforcing the existing power structures and marginalizing the core interests of minority communities. Everyone is biased and everyone operates against the background of institutionalized bias/racism. Recognizing those biases and acknowledging they may exist is one way of minimizing their effect.
Hell yes I do. I want to take away anything that contributes to the mentality that “we’re here to fight a battle and the public (particularly the brown-skinned public) are the enemy.”
The only reason Bull Connor’s thugs used fire hoses and attack dogs in Birmingham instead of tear gas canisters and stun grenades is that they were working with what they had available. Now, you could quite reasonably argue “the REAL problem wasn’t that the police had fire hoses, the problem is that they were violent racist pricks.” And you’d be right.
Still—it wouldn’t hurt to ban those violent racist pricks from using fire hoses against demonstrators, right?
I think that’s exactly what the argument is, and that demilitarizing won’t really do much of anything. Minorities are still going to be killed by police, via guns or stun guns or beatings or chokeholds (it’s amazing how resonant Do the Right Thing remains on its 25th anniversary). And the ensuing demonstrators are going to be attacked with batons, riot shields, and whatever else the police are allowed to have.
I remember visiting Europe pre-9/11 and being shocked at how you would see police with submachine guns on the metro in Paris, military vehicles and army personnel in random places in Germany, and things like that, when you certainly didn’t see them in North America. I’m not sure their experience shows militarization is the real problem.
Well yeah, that, but I mean more the common phenomenon of putting white concerns back on center stage, even without realizing it. I see it time and time and time again. Errrrrgh.
I’m not black and I used to live in Japan. I do not consume much American TV newsmedia because, well… they need to pick up their game. So there’s that aspect of coverage that I’m simply not seeing. I have no idea how much TV news is focusing on the militarisation over the racism inherent in the topic, but I don’t think that I’ve been particularly thorny of disagreeable over the issue, nor have I diminished the racism aspect in any way. I’m merely making an argument as to why militarisation of police is extra bad for black communities, since it’s agreed that black communities are disproportionately targeted. As I said in the part you quoted, I’m not disagreeing with him I’m just disagreeing to what degree militarisation is bad for all who suffer under it.
Apparently we all know the real issues facing “minority communities” and the best way to address them—and how dare a black person come in here to question our judgment!
Yes, this has totally be the tone and angle I’ve taken.
So military-type gear is as acceptable as regular riot gear in this scenario for you? I remember all those angry white folks protesting one of their own being shot while unarmed. I’m glad they’re going to be met with police in military gear… oh wait.
You, as a non-black Australian who doesn’t consume much US media (not that that’s relevant, as US media doesn’t do a great job of reflecting black issues), are persistently disagreeing with a black American about how bad militarisation is for black Americans. But of course it would be wrong to suggest that you (and others) seem to think your sources, expertise, and knowledge of the how bad militarisation is for minorities in the USA is as solid and authoritative as that of a black American. And it was wrong to think that people here were pushing back against him saying that, as a black American, he doesn’t think that militarization is for the black community. You guys don’t even spell militarization the same way, which should tell you something about how disparate your shared experiences and expertise on this subject may be.
The tools are largely irrelevant. The NYPD can kill black folk selling loose cigarettes just fine with their bare hands. Millions of blacks are targeted and incarcerated without the police ever brandishing any sort of weapon.
