Ta-Nehisi Coates on Baltimore

[summer]

Bolded is mine because that was the *mic drop* for me. 


www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/

Rioting broke out on Monday in Baltimore—an angry response to the death of Freddie Gray, a death my native city seems powerless to explain. Gray did not die mysteriously in some back alley but in the custody of the city's publicly appointed guardians of order. And yet the mayor of that city and the commissioner of that city's police still have no idea what happened. I suspect this is not because the mayor and police commissioner are bad people, but because the state of Maryland prioritizes the protection of police officers charged with abuse over the citizens who fall under its purview.


The citizens who live in West Baltimore, where the rioting began, intuitively understand this. I grew up across the street from Mondawmin Mall, where today's riots began. My mother was raised in the same housing project, Gilmor Homes, where Freddie Gray was killed. Everyone I knew who lived in that world regarded the police not with admiration and respect but with fear and caution. People write these feelings off as wholly irrational at their own peril, or their own leisure. The case against the Baltimore police, and the society that superintends them, is easily made:



Over the past four years, more than 100 people have won court judgments or settlements related to allegations of brutality and civil rights violations. Victims include a 15-year-old boy riding a dirt bike, a 26-year-old pregnant accountant who had witnessed a beating, a 50-year-old woman selling church raffle tickets, a 65-year-old church deacon rolling a cigarette and an 87-year-old grandmother aiding her wounded grandson ....



And in almost every case, prosecutors or judges dismissed the charges against the victims—if charges were filed at all. In an incident that drew headlines recently, charges against a South Baltimore man were dropped after a video showed an officer repeatedly punching him—a beating that led the police commissioner to say he was “shocked.”

The money paid out by the city to cover for the brutal acts of its police department would be enough to build "a state-of-the-art rec center or renovations at more than 30 playgrounds." Instead, the money was used to cover for the brutal acts of the city's police department and ensure they remained well beyond any semblance of justice.




Now, tonight, I turn on the news and I see politicians calling for young people in Baltimore to remain peaceful and "nonviolent." These well-intended pleas strike me as the right answer to the wrong question. To understand the question, it's worth remembering what, specifically, happened to Freddie Gray. An officer made eye contact with Gray. Gray, for unknown reasons, ran. The officer and his colleagues then detained Gray. They found him in possession of a switchblade. They arrested him while he yelled in pain. And then, within an hour, his spine was mostly severed. A week later, he was dead. What specifically was the crime here? What particular threat did Freddie Gray pose? Why is mere eye contact and then running worthy of detention at the hands of the state? Why is Freddie Gray dead?

The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when Jerriel Lyles was assaulted. (“The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up. Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.”) There was no claim for nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green. (“Bitch, you ain’t no better than any of the other old black bitches I have locked up.”) There was no plea for peace on behalf of Starr Brown. (“They slammed me down on my face,” Brown added, her voice cracking. “The skin was gone on my face.")



When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the rioters themselves.

[cookiemdough]

"When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con."

All of this. Every single bit.

[erbear]

Wow. That brought me to tears.

[secretlyevil]

Wow, that was awesome.

[zoegirltx]

and that's why i think he's one of the greatest writers of our generation, especially WRT to race & class

[spaghettisquash]

Apr 28, 2015 5:58:15 GMT -5 zoegirltx said:

and that's why i think he's one of the greatest writers of our generation, especially WRT to race & class

Agreed. Reading his pieces has really changed my view of the world. This article, in particular, should be mandatory reading.

[NewOrleans]

The people this speaks to already know it. The people who need to hear it are too busy in the comments section.

[secretlyevil]

Apr 28, 2015 6:12:44 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

The people this speaks to already know it. The people who need to hear it are too busy in the comments section.

Sad but true.

[gazpacho]

I woke up this morning with such a heavy feeling. This article is everything that I've been feeling and having trouble articulating to others.

[thejackpot]

Fuck yeah! This is the TRUTH! I want to print it out and leave it around for my colleagues. I am just so happy that someone articulated my feelings because I have been feeling some kind of way since this all started. The mayor's press conference only riled me up more with the dismissive use of the word thug. UGH.

Great piece!

[brandienee]

Great article, Coates is amazing. This whole thing is heartbreaking.

[eclaires]

I posted this on facebook, but it seems apt here, too... I just am not clear on exactly how much we expect people to take before they break. We've had our chance to make these changes and address these horrific incidents/murders peacefully, but we haven't taken it.

I agree 100% with the idea that preaching non-violence in response to police brutality is a con. It's a sick, sad joke that we expect people to keep taking these murders and only respond in ways those in power deem appropriate, especially in America. Isn't that who we are? Isn't that our national identity - that we don't accept those in power simply because they are in power? Or is that only for white land owners who don't want to pay taxes?

Almost $6m in police brutality settlements wasn't a deterrent in this case... and a peaceful protest is somehow going to change the outcome in the future? I doubt it. We've set up a situation where the only outcome is a revolution, basically, and while I hate that it's come to this and I don't want anyone hurt or anyone's property damaged, I accept that it's our reality. You reap what you sow, and you absolutely cannot expect people to keep taking this treatment and not responding in kind and not being mad as hell. This is what happens when people aren't heard and changes aren't made.

[katfco]

Thanks for sharing this. I just shared it on Facebook. Should be a fun day.

[cookiemdough]

Apr 28, 2015 7:26:05 GMT -5 eclaires said:

I posted this on facebook, but it seems apt here, too... I just am not clear on exactly how much we expect people to take before they break. We've had our chance to make these changes and address these horrific incidents/murders peacefully, but we haven't taken it.

I agree 100% with the idea that preaching non-violence in response to police brutality is a con. It's a sick, sad joke that we expect people to keep taking these murders and only respond in ways those in power deem appropriate, especially in America. Isn't that who we are? Isn't that our national identity - that we don't accept those in power simply because they are in power? Or is that only for white land owners who don't want to pay taxes?

Almost $6m in police brutality settlements wasn't a deterrent in this case... and a peaceful protest is somehow going to change the outcome in the future? I doubt it. We've set up a situation where the only outcome is a revolution, basically, and while I hate that it's come to this and I don't want anyone hurt or anyone's property damaged, I accept that it's our reality. You reap what you sow, and you absolutely cannot expect people to keep taking this treatment and not responding in kind and not being mad as hell. This is what happens when people aren't heard and changes aren't made.

Love

[summer]

Apr 28, 2015 7:26:05 GMT -5 eclaires said:

I posted this on facebook, but it seems apt here, too... I just am not clear on exactly how much we expect people to take before they break. We've had our chance to make these changes and address these horrific incidents/murders peacefully, but we haven't taken it.

I agree 100% with the idea that preaching non-violence in response to police brutality is a con. It's a sick, sad joke that we expect people to keep taking these murders and only respond in ways those in power deem appropriate, especially in America. Isn't that who we are? Isn't that our national identity - that we don't accept those in power simply because they are in power? Or is that only for white land owners who don't want to pay taxes?

Almost $6m in police brutality settlements wasn't a deterrent in this case... and a peaceful protest is somehow going to change the outcome in the future? I doubt it. We've set up a situation where the only outcome is a revolution, basically, and while I hate that it's come to this and I don't want anyone hurt or anyone's property damaged, I accept that it's our reality. You reap what you sow, and you absolutely cannot expect people to keep taking this treatment and not responding in kind and not being mad as hell. This is what happens when people aren't heard and changes aren't made.

Preach.

I don't condone violence either, and I hate rioting always changes the narrative back to, "well, look at how those negroes behave..."  but how many peaceful marches have we had in the past years. And what happened? Nothing. Every day is a repeat of the day before.  

And I said it before, God bless smartphones and their video capabilities.  

[wawa]

Yes.

I have been so frustrated and sad and angry and so many other things reading the reactions of my friends on FB to yesterday's riots. So much anger and so much outrage that this is happening - but when Freddie Gray was killed? Crickets. Fucking crickets. Stop the violence indeed.

[omgzombies]

I made H read this piece this morning. Thank you.

[eclaires]

You know what I think is so frustrating to me about the reaction to all this? It's that it's such BASIC human nature to eventually have had enough and react and respond. I see it every fucking day with my kids - one of them pushes and pushes the other until the other one breaks and my response is pretty much the same, "welp. this is what happens." Of course I tell them they should walk away and ignore, but it's understandable when that doesn't happen. And it shouldn't always happen, anyway, because sometimes people need to learn. Actions have consequences, this is ours. We don't get to be mad that this is happening. The only people we should be mad at is ourselves for letting it get to this point and not taking the opportunities we've had before to make a change.

And yet, somehow, we expect people to just keep taking it. To keep turning the other cheek and living a life where they worry for their children and their spouses simply because of the color of their skin. Where they have to sit down and tell their kids how to behave around cops so as not to get murdered. MURDERED. Where they have to tell them to be twice as good as every other dumbass kid out there simply because of the color of their skin. And when the worst happens, it doesn't exist for most of us, until we're forced to see it and even then, our response is to be mad at the people who are reacting to oppression and systemic racism because how dare they make us uncomfortable and make us feel unsafe or scared.

It's sickening. They can sever your spine, but god forbid you respond with anything other than a peaceful protest.

[twotrue]

Thank you for sharing this.

[dixeedeluxe]

Apr 28, 2015 6:12:44 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

The people this speaks to already know it. The people who need to hear it are too busy in the comments section.

Lurking here, but following all the Baltimore posts and YES this is so true.  It seems like something I'd love to post as a counter argument on my FB, but people won't GET IT unless they already GET IT.

[Velar Fricative]

It's bullshit that non-violence is always the answer. I want it to always be the answer, but it just isn't.

On Staten Island a couple of weeks ago, they closed one of our four bridges (one of the lighter-used ones, and one of three that go to NJ) for an hour on a Monday. It was 11:00-noon, so not rush hour. A peaceful march occurred with the starting point being on that bridge (end point of DC), hence the closing. No violence whatsoever occurred that day. And yet, you'd think the marchers were setting our entire borough on fire for having that bridge closed for an hour. Comments about marchers not having jobs (because everyone works on Mondays and works 9-5 and has no personal days to take whatsoever) were plentiful, as were comments about inconveniencing everyone else and thus making us ignore the message, etc. Because if they just peacefully marched along a desolate street, we'd all pay close attention to their message! Fucking stupidity, man.

The fact that non-violence can't always be the answer is what makes me fearful of what's next. Nobody learned anything from Michael Brown as there have been numerous black people killed by law enforcement since then. I fear we have not reached the nadir yet.

[cville]

Apr 28, 2015 6:12:44 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

The people this speaks to already know it. The people who need to hear it are too busy in the comments section.

This breaks my heart.  It's true and it breaks my heart.

[sporky]

Thanks for sharing this. It's one of the better reads I've seen this morning.

[One Girl In All The World]

I am sharing this, though I suspect it will largely fall on deaf ears.

[underwaterrhymes]

Apr 28, 2015 8:24:44 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

It's bullshit that non-violence is always the answer. I want it to always be the answer, but it just isn't.

On Staten Island a couple of weeks ago, they closed one of our four bridges (one of the lighter-used ones, and one of three that go to NJ) for an hour on a Monday. It was 11:00-noon, so not rush hour. A peaceful march occurred with the starting point being on that bridge (end point of DC), hence the closing. No violence whatsoever occurred that day. And yet, you'd think the marchers were setting our entire borough on fire for having that bridge closed for an hour. Comments about marchers not having jobs (because everyone works on Mondays and works 9-5 and has no personal days to take whatsoever) were plentiful, as were comments about inconveniencing everyone else and thus making us ignore the message, etc. Because if they just peacefully marched along a desolate street, we'd all pay close attention to their message! Fucking stupidity, man.

The fact that non-violence can't always be the answer is what makes me fearful of what's next. Nobody learned anything from Michael Brown as there have been numerous black people killed by law enforcement since then. I fear we have not reached the nadir yet.

I shared this on ML, but am pasting it here as it enforces this point.

Great article by Al Jazeera


america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/26/american-social-movementshavealwaysincludedriots.html

Shortly after a St. Louis County grand jury decided not to indict white police officer Darren Wilson for shooting and killing unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement condoning non-violent protest against the decision but condemning acts of vandalism. Holder’s remarks distinguished between “legitimate demonstrators” and those who “were trying to loot and trying to destroy businesses and burn things.”

“The way in which we have made progress in this country is when we have seen peaceful, nonviolent demonstrations that have led to the change that has been the most long-lasting and the most pervasive,” he said.

President Barack Obama and St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch, among others, expressed similar sentiments. The president declared that justice could not be achieved by using anger at the Michael Brown verdict “as an excuse to vandalize property,” while McCulloch urged protesters to “keep that discussion going” but to “do it in a constructive way.”

Obama's desire to avoid the destruction of lives and property is hardly surprising, and is widely shared on all sides of the divide over the Michael Brown verdict. But the idea that the historical record shows that exclusively non-violent protest has driven progressive social change in America is open to question. In a number of cases, the crisis caused by riots and property destruction has had a significant role in forcing authorities to respond to demands for political change. And even some of America’s most iconic “nonviolent” movements included moments of destruction and chaos not unlike that which occurred in Ferguson following the grand jury decision.

Many of those criticizing destructive behavior in Ferguson over the past week have cited the example of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s as the model for nonviolent, orderly resistance. Peaceful demonstrations — sometimes in the face of violent policing and provocation — were certainly a key feature of the civil rights era. So, too, were outbreaks of violence such as the 1965 Watts Riots in Los Angeles.

While Dr. King never advocated violent and destructive behavior, he also said it would be “morally irresponsible” to condemn riots “without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society.”

“These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention,” King said in a 1968 speech. “And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.”

Nor has it only been the victims of the Jim Crow period that have spoken in that language. The modern gay-rights movement may have won many of its recent victories at the ballot box and in the courthouse, but it was born out of an act of violent desperation when a 1969 raid a New York City gay bar, the Stonewall Inn, turned into a riot as crowds attacked the police. Today, its June 28 anniversary is celebrated annually as Gay Pride Day, and President Obama in his second inaugural speech hailed Stonewall — along with Seneca Falls (birthplace of the movement for women's rights) and civil rights marches in Selma — as milestones on America's journey to realize the dream of equality.

The battle for the eight-hour working day in the U.S. included such violent outbursts as the 1886 Haymarket riot, while a key moment in the fight for labor's right to organize trade unions came at the 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, when thousands of striking coal miners waged open warfare on local law enforcement and the U.S. military. “Food riots” were also common throughout the U.S. during the Great Depression, fueling the social crisis that spurred the New Deal.

History offers no definitive judgment on whether these acts of violence were productive. Social movements, after all, are diffuse and complicated, and the social and political change that emerges from moments of great upheaval can rarely be attributed to any single cause. But once society has embraced changes driven by social movements, the more unpleasant and uncomfortable aspects of their history is often forgotten.

It's worth noting the advice of social scientists to avoid a simple distinction between "legitimate" movements and violent upheavals in studying the history of protest driving social change in the U.S. Writing of the civil rights movement, Stanford sociologist Doug McAdam offers an analysis that may apply more broadly: It was, he wrote, “a coalition of thousands of local efforts nationwide, spanning several decades, hundreds of discrete groups, and all manner of strategies and tactics—legal, illegal, institutional, non-institutional, violent, non-violent.”

But what shaped the place of all social movements in U.S. history was ultimately how the authorities responded to the grievances that brought the complainants out onto the streets in the first place.

[cookiemdough]

I am just going to sit back and let Eclaires speak for me today.

[eclaires]

Apr 28, 2015 8:34:43 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

I am just going to sit back and let Eclaires speak for me today.

I'm blushing, because that's pretty high praise.    

[heyjude]

Yes. So much yes.

[wawa]

Apr 28, 2015 8:34:43 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

I am just going to sit back and let Eclaires speak for me today.

Yup.  In fact eclaires if you're cool with it, I might C&P one of your posts into my FB status.

[eclaires]

Apr 28, 2015 8:46:29 GMT -5 wawa said:

Apr 28, 2015 8:34:43 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

I am just going to sit back and let Eclaires speak for me today.

Yup.  In fact eclaires if you're cool with it, I might C&P one of your posts into my FB status.

fine with me.