Episode 11 of the Ra Men Podcast featured a different format: rather than the usual single guest interviewed by Aron, Mark, and/or Lilandra, Episode 11 included several members in a panel-style discussion on the recent happenings in Ferguson, MO. The podcast stayed within its normal hour long time, which likely limited the amount of in-depth discussion on particular issues in Ferguson. My qualm is not with format or the time limit, but instead with the rhetoric being stated by some of the guests.
Here's my statement I placed on the video comments:
Harsh rhetoric from myself, too. My goal with the above statement was to focus in on and dismantle the belief that righteous anger is a justified emotion to be held the the on-the-ground leaders. It cannot be stated enthusiastically enough: leaders must act with reason and purpose, not with anger or indignation. Emotions are fine at driving a person, but they must be left out of the decision making process. This was clearly evidenced in Mrs. Crutchfield's willingness to "fan the flames". Ferguson deserves leaders, not cheer teams.The statement by Mr. Croft that "everyone else's experience is not the exactly the same as yours" being equated to a justification for the "indiscriminate slaughter" of a given minority was laughable. Vapid statements like these do nothing to work towards resolving the problems we are seeing in police forces around the United States. It is merely inflammatory rhetoric which has its genesis in the weak "social privilege" theory--a theory which is devoid of action.
I'm miffed about this episode. It is an important topic, but it was terribly mishandled. Aron, who usually demands clear, empirical evidence, bows to people who fall outside his "white privilege" (i.e., people who are higher up on the "progressive stack") and allows them to rail off anecdotal evidence unchallenged. Mrs. Crutchfield said her goal was to "fan the flames". Has she not considered that the "flames being fanned" might be detrimental to fixing this problem? In all of this, Mrs. Crutchfield came across as the most overtly racist with her generalized statements about white people. She comes across as lacking introspection and self awareness.
Let us employ Occam's Razor by asking which is more likely: (a) police officers are inherently racist, which is why they are more vicious towards blacks or other minorities, or (b) police officers are grossly under trained and lack interpersonal skills when it comes to conflict resolution, leading to excessive use of force at times. Both options are systemic problems and both can be corrected.
Thanks for discussing this; however, the quality of this particular episode was by far the worst thus far in terms in challenging material and insightful discussion.
When there is a lack of critical analysis on the leaders of any movement, leaders are left with a carte blanche for their messages and actions. Mrs. Crutchfield, who admitted she was on the ground daily in Ferguson, is doing a disservice to her community by allowing her anger with the situation to impair her judgement and also by allowing the personal to become political. In the podcast, Mrs. Crutchfield makes the flippant statement that she is afraid of white police officers pulling her over while driving. This does not equate racism in the police force; rather, that only shows one woman's (mostly unjustified) fear.
Mr. Croft also factors into this. He attempts to play the "white privilege" game, whereby he engages in the mental gymnastics of condemning whites (seems rather racist, to me) while disassociating himself from that group. The only thing he didn't do was whip himself. The "privilege" game is wasteful and absolutely ineffective simply because it makes the personal political. Why is that bad? It is a terrible idea because the call for change that comes from the personal being political will only be accepted if it precisely matches what the personal desires were in the first place. The best example of this is abortion rights for women: one side argued it was up to the individual to decide for herself while the other side state their god would be angered and thus that made them uncomfortable. Clear as mud!
Now, here are some reasons why anger is only a destructive force in Ferguson, and I'll do my best to not bring too much of the Stoics mindset into this. Allowing anger in justifies the destruction and violence we've seen so far. Moreover, that same anger propels people into accepting they are oppressed by tapping into their anger. A group of people who feel oppressed will fight back. It is a vicious cycle. The damage caused is extensive, of course. The price of business is extremely high when there is a reasonable chance for riots. Business insurance goes up, making the cost of running a business in Ferguson even more expensive. The surrounding land value drops due to the poor business prospects, which effectively drives out individuals and families who view their homes as investments. Fewer homeowners in Ferguson leads to a smaller tax collection by the city, which directly impacts the city's ability to finance basic infrastructure. As city programs grind to a halt, the city becomes even less desirable to remain in, ultimately driving out more people and acts to turn new comers away. This cycle continues until the city is forced to seek alternatives to make up the difference in operating budget. It cannot look to increasing property taxes in the city as the city has high unemployment, nor can it increase business taxes and fees (which furthers the difficulty for businesses).
Now, that is a grim picture I've illustrated. And I've done it in a way that is entirely devoid of a particular racial group. In other words, it can happen anywhere and to anyone. But this is the moment where we see the opportunity to change matters in Ferguson. We know the city has decided to use traffic tickets as a means of generating revenue. As such, a memo goes out to local police ordering them to be hypersensitive (no proof of this, of course, but it is a reasonable assumption) to all traffic violations. Political change on this point reshapes the relationship between the community and law enforcement; rather than threatening layoffs to police due to an impending lack of funding if those tickets aren't issued, police will be encouraged to work on building rapport in the community--to view the community as people rather than potential government revenue.
Again, I've laid this out without mentioning of race. Does a black man in Ferguson not have a job because he is black? Absolutely not. A black man in Ferguson doesn't have a job because there are not enough jobs in Ferguson. Understand that Ferguson is 67% black. For black men, 17.8% are unemployed. 28% of the black population lives under the poverty line. The opportunities to escape are limited by the lack of wealth, not because of people being a given race. Dedicating substantial financial efforts to build the economy of Ferguson, bringing jobs to the young men of Ferguson, will bring greater community peace. Why only young men? Giving those men purpose keeps them off of the streets, away from drugs, out of fights (or worse escalation), and focused on improving their chances and their families chances. More importantly, however, is they become role models for other young black men in the area.
Much of this might seem vapid, but I argue that is because of the inherent bias being brought in. I am not black. I am not American, either (although I do live in the United States now). My history is different. That does not mean I cannot bring reasonable solutions to the table, though. The greatest moral failing with the protesters' side of the Ferguson situation is their ridiculous attitudes on "privilege", which creates enemies out of allies and silences good ideas because of someone's skin colour. After all, if the fight is about racial equality (not tolerance), better treatment by (white) police of (black) citizens, then anyone's idea which addresses these problems and attempts to provide solutions ought to be considered.
One last point before closing: the problem within the police is separate to the problems in Ferguson (i.e., low employment, high poverty, no social mobility). Following Michael Brown's death, those two problems intersected at their most volatile. The police have many problems that I will not mention here, but will at some point. This purpose of this post was to lay out two simple facts: Ferguson has significant governmental and political problems which hurts the economy, and thus social mobility (i.e., "hope") and that relying on racist rhetoric (e.g., "white police officers are causing this") pushes away those who would otherwise be sympathetic to assisting in political change.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
No comments:
Post a Comment