thesteadyeddie: 2020

How you react to something is important. In that first reaction you are establishing how you should react the second or third time you see something similar – and can affect other peoples’ perceptions of you. They too will react, and their reaction to yours is itself the first link in a chain of reactions.

All Black

It’s not clear when the phrase “All Lives Matter” first appeared, but when it did the reaction was of anger – and although I’ve found it difficult to find the first use of the term, it seems the current interpretation of its intent as racist appears to have been assumed rather than confirmed, despite the inherent inclusivity implied in the statement. The reaction was certainly understandable. The logic of pointing out that the statement “Black Lives Matter” is simply about highlighting the societal issues faced by people of colour is sound. But the vitriolic nature of the reaction immediately made “All Lives Matter” suddenly very attractive to one particular political group, who, believing it to grant them some legitimacy in the diversity stakes of the modern world, decided to adopt it – mostly by trolls on Twitter or Facebook to laugh at the reactions whenever the statement was deployed.

The argument around using “Black Lives Matter” rather than “All Lives Matter” has been communicated many times, so I won’t refresh it here. Of course if it were possible to say either phrase without any undue political associations being automatically assigned to me, and instead people interpreted the term simply as it is written, then I would gladly say “All Lives” – but I like to think I have the cognizance to realise that the current political climate makes these terms very loaded, and am happy to promote the use of Black Lives Matter.

Be Careful with Statistics

George Floyd is one of several men and women who have suffered at the hands of an over-militarised, under-trained, heavy-handed police force who seem to prize looking cool over actual police work. The intentions behind each of these acts of violence are often unclear – we must remember that statistics only tell half the story, and do not have any inherent value when analysing a new instance of what appears to be the same thing. Statistics mean nothing to individual cases. When watching the video of Floyd’s death, the intention that can be objectively determined is that Derek Chauvin wanted to kill him. Why? Well, that is difficult to determine.

The reaction that then followed obviously comes from a source of great pain and unrest that has been bubbling under and over the surface for many years in the United States of America, made all the more painful by the promotion of a man who once advocated for the execution of five innocent non-Caucasian men – in a scene which could have been ripped from the pages of an 80s retelling of To Kill a Mockingbird – to the Presidency of the United States.

Although statistics are useless in analysing individual events, they do paint a rather sorry picture of the USA’s 157-year-long attempt to pull a bloody knife out of the heart of its foundation. Around 35-40% of its jail population is black, despite this demographic only making up about 12% of the USA’s overall population. The reasons for this are murky, with some arguing that it is because the US justice system is weighted against black people and others suggesting it is because they account for a higher proportion of the crime rate. These two narratives of course can coexist, and both point to something which is more difficult to prove because it relies on extracting intentions and biases: is this down to systemic racism or the lack of general social mobility across classes? With these two narratives sometimes butting heads it is no wonder the United States is so polarised. It’s reported that the USA is more divided now than it was back in the Civil War.

The Outrage

There is understandable outrage at the death of George Floyd, the most recent example of police officers killing an unarmed black man. His criminal record should have no impact on the outcry over his death – and even if he had been white or such race issues were not readily present, the circumstances of his death is obscene and the peaceful protests we have seen are an example of why free speech is such an important right for governments, judiciaries and – where possible – constitutions to bestow upon their citizens, and defend from incursion from those with good but inherently dangerous intentions. This might be why even conservative media outlets and commentators are also expressing their support for the protests and acknowledging that there might actually be a problem here.

When you protest, your voice is heard. It is fantastic to see that the crowds of people marching through cities across the world in support of George and the others who came before him is ethnically diverse. It is also great to see that there are police departments in other parts of the United States who are taking a knee or expressing support.

It is not a little concerning that National Guard soldiers are shooting at people standing outside their doorways; journalists are being attacked and detained for reporting on the protests and filming police officers; and governors are being strong-armed into ever-heavier tactics by their President. One of the more recent developments is police officers covering their name tags and badge numbers to make reporting them harder.

The Nature of the Protest

On any given issue, there are 3 types of people: the supporters, the transgressors, and the apathetic. As a supporter you are not going to convince the transgressors. It’s been known to happen, but it’s rare. The apathetic on the other hand tend to represent the largest proportion of the population; they are the swing voters, the non-partisan, who are more concerned with their financial stability than political and social progress. They will make up their mind about who to vote for based on a five-minute conversation with Tim From Next Door and what they partially hear on the news.

This is why narratives are important, and accurate ones even more so.

There have been incidents reported of people dressed in black clothing, wearing masks and headwear, causing destruction: the most popular one (and the one I’ve cited) is of somebody smashing the windows of a shop, but there are others I have seen of a person smashing a pavement/sidewalk; and another asking for help to tip over a van. They are subsequently accosted by the protestors, and the person either runs away or is handed over to police. The protestors that step in to stop these actions are examples of people who disagree with the idea that the nature of the protest is not more important than the reason why – they are of equal importance.

In 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, a black woman refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white passenger, and the ACLU rushed to support her case, believing she will become a symbol of the anti-segregation movement. Her name was Claudette Colvin. She was 15 years old, unmarried, and pregnant. The ACLU decided not to proceed with Colvin as the posterchild of their movement, deciding that she was not be the best person to represent it as the narrative will focus around her as a person, not her act of defiance. 8 months later, Rosa Parks, a 42-year-old married but childless woman also refuses to give up her seat to a white passenger, and the NAACP – of which both she and Colvin were members – decide that she is a better representative of the movement.

As frustrated as members of these movements may be that they have to be so careful about who represents them and how their message is conveyed, they do recognise that the narrative is vital to the furtherance of that message and its ability to penetrate social dogmas. This is especially true for movements which rally around constructive ideas and progressivism because destructive methods and war-like attitudes make your movement appear hypocritical.

You cannot expect the apathetic proportion of the public who sit on the periphery, ballot paper in hand, to support your movement if their local businesses are being attacked and their tax dollars being spent on replacing the fleets of destroyed police vehicles. It might sound callous, but it is not about putting money before lives – it’s about making your movement one that is worthy of support, not just in its key message, but its ability to conduct itself with integrity. Especially when the movement is about questioning the integrity of another group.

Not Just the USA

The United States of America is not the only country struggling with race relations. The belligerent part of me wants to point out that Asia is much worse(!) – if you’re wondering why Hollywood is still reluctant to put black men in starring roles in their bigger blockbusters, it’s mostly because they’re now trying to sell to 1.3 billion Chinese people who not that long ago made laundry detergent adverts which claim to be able to “clean” your black boyfriend.

I am of course actually talking about my own country, the United Kingdom. Both the USA and the UK have made great strides in the last 200 or so years of reaching universal legal equality, and this has been achieved – it is cultural and social equality that is the problem and is where the focus now needs to be. This comes down to supporting these protests – peacefully of course, please see above – and calling out racism whenever it can be identified. We must always remember to assess a person by their character, not judge them by a group identity. This too will go a long way to healing these divides.

Statues

About 300 years ago, there lived a man who contributed greatly to the success of my adoptive hometown, Bristol. He built hospitals, schools, almshouses, and would later represent the city for one term as its Member of Parliament. When he died, he gave away what was left of his fortune and his request for a small, humble funeral ceremony was ignored.

However, that fortune was built on the back of the slave trade.

Colston engaged in one of the most despicable acts of human trafficking and subjugation ever witnessed in human history. Colston, like everyone else at the time, believed a lie of white superiority and profited from it, and would be seen by Bristolians who benefited from his mercantile success as a great man, worthy of the making of a statue which would stand facing the harbour in which his trading ships once found port.

In 1999, Pero’s Bridge, named after a slave called Pero Jones, was built across the harbour to allow for quicker pedestrian access between two parts of the city. It was a purely functional structure, and although the naming of the bridge was considered a bit controversial, it has become an iconic part of the city. To me, however, it also represented something quite poetic. Because Pero’s Bridge was built, more-or-less, in the eyeline of Edward Colston’s statue. The glorified mannequin of a slaver, looking at a functioning bridge named for a slave.

I have come to see statues and monuments less about reverence and more as ornaments of state – if we were to condemn and tear down any statue of any person who acted and possessed opinions considered morally reprehensible to our modern sensibilities then few such structures would exist. Many people throughout history who have fought for an idea and come to be revered for it have also held opinions which could be considered troubling by modern standards.

Colston’s statue now lies at the bottom of the harbour, pulled down by protestors, rolled and then pushed into its current resting place. Do not get me wrong, I’m not going to miss it. In the same way that the morality of a choice is decided at the moment it is practised, there’s little point analysing it after the fact. I am not even going to suggest it be re-erected – it should be pulled out of the river and put in a museum. And Colston’s statue is not the first to experience this treatment: at the time of writing, 22 other statues or memorials in the United States have also been removed either by protestors, the local government or the owners – most of the statues were for leaders of the Confederacy during the US Civil War.

Your House

When your neighbour attacks you, you should have a right to defend yourself. When they do so persistently, the answer is not to burn down the house, because flames tend to spread. Rather, the answer is to ensure that the community sees the bruises and the cuts – and your community will rally to prosecute the abusive element.

I am confident that the majority of people, at least in the West, stand united against police brutality and abuses of power. This is the moment when the political leaders of that majority speak for change in Congress. With the US election looming, police reform could be a leading manifesto pledge for Democrats and Republicans – one the voice of progressivism, and the other the voice of law and order.

The FBI are leading the investigation into George Floyd’s murder. The idea of using a federal agency to keep state or city policing in check sounds good in practise, but the FBI is itself a law enforcement agency. Whether at state or federal level, a new independent investigations agency needs to be created which is designed specifically to launch inquiries into police (or FBI) misconduct.

Training also needs improvement. This is a point that’s been made over and over again, but it’s worth making. Police training in many European countries is longer than that of the United States, and the carrying and use of firearms is not nearly as common – the US has a very different history of policing and the accessibility of guns means that it makes sense for its frontline officers to be armed, but this in of itself should be grounds to add at least another year of intense handling and discipline training, similar to that given to members of the armed forces. I may not be nor have I ever been part of the military, but I know enough about gun discipline through my consumption of media to be shocked at the callousness with which US police officers brandish their weapons. Compare the videos of police officers drawing their sidearms in the most mundane of altercations with the way in which National Guard soldiers keep their rifles slung and fingers off triggers unless ready to fire… this is the benefit of being taught respect for a dangerous tool, something which cannot be learnt in a 3-month crash course.

I have never been much of an activist. I’ll unhappily admit to being more of a keyboard warrior, but then writing was always my specialty. I think it’s important to remember that of the thousands of violent grassroot protests or revolutions that have taken place over the course of human history and the small handful of peaceful ones, the latter have a much higher success rate. This is particularly true in the modern world where there is the benefit of an international audience.

One of the biggest challenges now is keeping the momentum going. Regardless of how you feel about the media, the one thing that they like reporting on more than anything is conflict and violence because it’s “exciting”. The objective for Black Lives Matter now needs to be to sanitise their movement of such critique and force the news media to talk about the message.