The protests in response to the murder of George Floyd represented a shift in action that many have waited too long for. While many of the riots were the result of a cause commandeered by opportunists, they nevertheless highlight what happens when a small contained fire is constantly doused by fuel. There is no way to discuss Black Lives Matter nor the events that have followed Mr. Floyd’s passing without zooming in on the past; pouring over the minutiae of Jim Crow, the War on Drugs and many other coded policies and laws that have been dog-whistles aimed to maintain the status quo. In order to move forward, these are the topics that need to be addressed as ultimately, these are the behaviors America’s youth are socialized to carry on. An enemy one cannot identify and spot, is an enemy that cannot be fought or defeated.
Between Africans brought to the North American continent as slave labor and the Native, indigenous population that were cast from their homeland to make way for the glorified America we see today, even history books have been unable to spin this narrative from the ugliness that it contains. That these groups still see the effects of their American introduction to this day speaks volumes as to how much those have set the stage for the American Dream to be a reality for those in favor. For a group that cultivated plantations and dared to dream of Manifest Destiny, these are not goals easily given up. The labor alone dictates that the instructions for upkeep would indeed be passed on to the offspring of these early American heroes. To understand today is to understand this goal. And even while the rules of the game may change, the game still finds a way to stay the same. Credit must be given to the system, how it has evolved, finding a way to not only exist but grow in its efficiency. With the ultimate goal to be self-sustaining in spite of the wishes to extinguish it. This is what came about with the abolishment of slavery, and even better institution that would be harder to defeat and overthrow: Jim Crow and its lineage. 1619 is often viewed as the genesis of slavery in America, yet this practice had been a tried-and-true phenomenon for at least 175 years up until then. In fact, the North American English colonies were late to the party. Seeing the impact the slave trade had for its European neighbors in Spain and Portugal, this institution represented perfect timing as the settlers of this land wished to start anew. As a nation is forming, just as a business, what works is etched in stone to repeat and build upon. Utilizing slave labor as a basis to cultivate and stimulate the economy, worked. When the rules of the game change, it’s time to adapt. In a fight to maintain their way of life, the Civil War broke out between the defectors - the Confederate States of America - and the Union. The Republicans - strong proponents of abolishing slavery - eventually persuaded then-President Abraham Lincoln to make a proclamation abolishing the practice, which would come after the Battle of Antietam. As W.E.B. DuBois would highlight in his work, Black Reconstruction in America, it was through Black laborers understanding their worth and value that ultimately tipped the favor to the Union, “the black worker won the war by a general strike which transferred his labor from the Confederate planter to the Northern invader, in whose army lines workers began to be organized in a new labor force.” While slavery may have been defeated, the aftermath of the South’s reintegration, the Reconstruction era, would prove to be a Southern victory; essentially landing the former Confederate entity in a better position than it previously held. The plan for Reconstruction included a strategy for the investment in schools, healthcare, and Southern infrastructure not simply for the former Confederates but thanks to the Freedmen’s Bureau this reached the former slave as well. Lincoln’s assassination would bring rise to President Andrew Johnson; and while Lincoln himself wasn’t necessarily the figure history boasts him to be, his successor was the opposite - unwilling to work with Congress and very much so seemingly a Confederate apologist of sorts. Reconstruction under Johnson gave way to Jim Crow, however, the true antagonist came from - as DuBois claimed - the psychological wage afforded to the white laborers sharing land-tilling duties with the formerly enslaved population. This, and this alone, can be seen as the father to the mindset we still see present today. It is the basis of the socialization that has kept much of the status quo from changing as the settings have changed over time while the code has largely remained intact. Two workers, bound together by circumstance and set side-by-side in having what should be deemed as the same goals in mind, were separated. A child of the divide-and-conquer stratagem, this was perhaps the best bit of adapting to new rules that occurred. “It must be remembered that the white group of laborers, while they received a low wage, were compensated in part by a sort of public and psychological wage. They were given public deference and titles of courtesy because they were white. They were admitted freely with all classes of white people to public functions, public parks and the best schools. The police were drawn from their ranks, and the courts, dependent on their votes, treated them with such leniency as to encourage lawlessness. Their vote selected public officials, and while this had small effect on [their] economic situation, it had great effect upon their personal treatment and the deference shown [to] them. White schoolhouses were the best in the community, and conspicuously placed, and they cost anywhere from twice to ten times as much per capita as the colored schools. The newspapers specialized on news that flattered the poor whites and almost utterly ignored the Negro except in crime and ridicule.” If this sounds oddly familiar - written in 1935 as an account of the late 19th century, it’s because this has been the foundation. The titles of courtesy and deference remained and grew, giving way to what we today know to be privilege. Treating the poor white laborer better bred the thought that if the black laborer was being mistreated that there must have been rationale to substantiate it. Nevermind that the poor white laborer didn’t receive any physical amenities - still putting them in the same boat as their black counterpart - but the emotional and psychological experience was deemed sufficient enough. As “us” versus “them” is firmly established, the white laborer is distracted from seeking to improve their own conditions. One could argue this was a tactic utilized by the current occupant of the White House during his Presidential campaign. It continues to work because while the livelihood of the white laborer is not ideal, it is not the experience of the black laborer - or so believed. Between the birth of the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, and other Jim Crow-era laws - essentially a century-long practice - it has been made abundantly clear the tenor of where the country stands as it pertains to sharing the ideals of America with its black population. Overt segregation and race-specific water fountains may have disappeared in “body” but kept alive in spirit. As slaves plotting escape needed to do to execute their plans, the instructions for this way of life became coded. Slavery ending didn’t mean those willing to fight to preserve it would suddenly share their toys nicely. They needed to be smarter, they needed to hide and adapt. Jim Crow’s ‘Negros only’ would only give way to the same thing, just communicated differently: redlining and other forms of society closed off to the unwanted. Even for those that scoff at cosigning the mantras of the Ku Klux Klan, the beauty of the psychological wage is the interweaving of the interest between those proudly flying their Confederate flag and those benefitting from the titles of courtesy and deference. The system, really the trick, is brilliant. Ironically, the “over my dead body” crowd that rant and rave about their Second Amendment rights have understood this to some extent. As NPR’s The Gun Show perfectly illustrates, the reform that came from the Black Panther Party storming the California State Capitol informed the White people behind the NRA’s about-face that this event could befall them as well. The LGBTQ community has also witnessed such vilification in their fight to secure rights to marriage, access to healthcare, and safety against people wishing to exact harm amongst their ranks. This battle between the oppressed groups of our country and the perpetrators of said oppression have been taken on as platforms of our two primary political parties. The problematic nature of this is that the calls for progress can be dismissed as mere talking points of the Democratic and Republican party; this resulting in a stalemate instead of advancements for human and civil rights. What has seemed to happen over time is the hardwiring of the same points of view from the late 1860s into the systems we rely on today. Has anything changed from the schoolhouses DuBois referenced to the school districts of today? Districts in suburban, predominately White communities are flush with resources while the school districts in inner-cities typically are at the bottom of each state’s school ranking list. To make matters worse, initiatives aimed at fixing this - such as Boston’s METCO program - only seem to highlight the elephant in the room, while doing very little to fix the school departments youth are lining up in droves to leave. What continues to be a paradox is how the realities minorities face are so easily acknowledged while simultaneously being downplayed. Pre-gentrification, many middle-classed Whites stayed far away from the dangerous cities that bordered their safe havens adopting a roll-up-your-windows and lock-your-doors approach to driving through said places, but somehow for the person living in these communities, the idea is for them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps as one’s ancestors - arriving in the U.S. from Ellis Island - had; completely ignoring that their assimilation did not follow the same trend as that of the Black slave descendant. Even with gentrification, parts seen particularly unsafe are still untouched, the same as how the revenue being brought into the city manages to only benefit the areas that are being gentrified and invested in. Nevertheless, any attempts to heal and undo should be applauded in their intent and the understanding should be that there will need to be many attempts - and all hands in - to find the right solutions. The city of Asheville, North Carolina passed a resolution aimed at identifying appropriate forms of reparations to pay to its Black population as an apology and atonement for its part in slavery and Jim Crow. While the measure is not perfect, there will be a lot of eyes on seeing how the city plans to roll out this initiative with specifics, what has been discussed thus far does get at the root of what needs to be addressed in any form of reparations that should be proposed. Per the municipal bill, the newly minted Community Reparations Commission would be responsible for developing programs and resources with the help of other organizations and cities that desire to play a role. The goal would be to increase home and business ownership for minorities and close the gaps that exist in healthcare, education, employment and pay as well as strategize efforts to grow equity and generational wealth. Councilwoman Sheneika Smith summarized the need for this initiative perfectly, “(Slavery) is this institution that serves as the starting point for the building of the strong economic floor for white America, while attempting to keep Blacks subordinate forever to its progress.” While not every participant in white America has had the access to reap the rewards of that ‘strong economic floor’, the cling to privilege - titles of courtesy and forms of deference - and individualism has created many accomplices in the lack of change. Americans are socialized to worry about themselves while still feeling capable of calling out the deficiencies of other Americans, despite no true attempts to help uplift or remove barriers to social mobility. This is due to the idea of jockeying for positioning on the societal totem pole, as opposed to understanding that too many Americans are in the same boat and together can demand a better situation if united. But those in power saw this strategy, worked, and were wise enough to create a system that allowed it to function on autopilot. Hopefully being aware of the trick can allow for better dialogue in toppling the oppression too many Americans face in the 21st century. An example is Ava Duvernay’s Netflix documentary, 13th, which shows how slavery had been abolished in all but name; an ode to how the amendment essentially allows slavery to be admissible for those imprisoned with the word except being present. The worldwide protests of the murder of Mr. Floyd and cries of Black Lives Matter have taken a large step forward towards that understanding of unity needed to undo this well-oiled machine. What we should have learned is that the chants of many far outnumber the silence of a few. And the constant push for change and reform can and will lead to progress. With the tricks of the enemy in tow, hopefully can work together as a nation to defeat this new iteration of 1619. We will need more listening, more understanding and more empathy to create a country that can finally live up to its Constitution’s creed.
Shocker! A writer is going to wax poetic about the importance of words and the use of language. LOL. But I promise they're important. No, the power is not in possessing a complex vocabulary of hoity-toity words but truly understanding the power of language. Here's an example:
Words predate our memories. We've been learning sounds, building towards being able to form sentences and express thought since birth. If an alien hopped out the UFO whip and asked you how you spoke words you couldn't say. You couldn't explain it. By this point, it's second nature. But in the process of thinking about this, here's a question, do you ever stop to dissect the words you use? Do you ever think about the weight of your words? The implications? In the clip above, Muhammad Ali refers to how everything 'white' has a positive connotation and conjures up good memories, yet everything black is the opposite.
One such phrase I've tried to remove from my Batman utility belt is the tendency to label things as not being "black or white" - as in expressing that something is not this or that but rather complex in nature. Yes, I understand the idea of the difference between the colors themselves, making the statement factual in origin. But these are also the words we've chosen as a society to label people of African descent and people of a Caucasian or European descent. Since there's no way we're coming up with a new Dewey system for people, the entire phrase should be thrown away as it reinforces the difference between people, a weapon used to justify hatred and discrimination. This is how sneaky the system is. Yet, I've gathered you here not because I want to speak broadly about the use of language but because I want to talk about one word in particular and why, I know this will be controversial so hear me out, I think it does us more harm than good. Racism, racist and it's family of words. In short, it's incomplete. But you came here for the long version, so off we go. Too often we want things to be short and sweet. Twitter, a platform of words, has a character limit. But even as creatures we often prefer to take in information in bits and pieces. That's why a headline is so great. It can tell you what you're getting yourself into before you dedicate x amount of time to reading the article or post you clicked on. This does hold value. Time is of the essence, and sometimes yes, we need to gather information quickly and be able to plan and proceed accordingly. But dismantling systemic oppression and having uncomfortable conversations about race in America is not suited for Twitter. It may not even be suited for the constructs of an article or even a book. There's too many layers to uncover. Too many topics to go into. It's verbose. It's wordy. There is no short and sweet. It's multi-dimensional and convoluted. This is something we need to get used to as we use social media to engage in discussions of this sort. And part of that process means weeding out words that are what I call 'catch-all words'. A dresser is the word we use to describe a piece of furniture that is used to store clothes. What you mean to say is the definition but we can't go around saying this long ass descriptor and so we came up with a name - dresser. I say dresser and you know what I'm referring to. I say armoire or wardrobe and you know what I'm referring to. Racism, or calling someone a racist, is believe it or not one of those terms. In fact it's worse because there's so many layers to what a racist is that by simply labeling it as such allows you to miss out on so much good, 'nougat'-y nuance. Let's take a racist White guy. What's this person's level of education? What's this person's relationship with their family? What's this person's relationship with his "race"? What was this person's upbringing like? What's this person's story? Did this person have a particular encounter with someone of the race they're talking down upon? What are this person's fears? Are there any societal institutions this person belongs to? There's a number of stones to turn over and steps to retrace in learning who this person is. America has managed to have one great leap in matters of race and that's in successfully labeling the term on a similar pedestal to that of the cigarette. It's so marinated in this is wrong sauce that people saying or doing something deemed to be patently racist will tell you they aren't racist. And by the book, they might not be. This system is so steeped into their socialization, so steeped into their norms and values that they don't see their offending behavior as racist. It's just how they grew up. It's like me saying dresser and you've never seen a piece of furniture that holds clothes. I say dresser and it doesn't compute. That's what's happening here. You're describing something as 'racist' and the person has no compass for where to direct the word you're saying to anything they've experienced. Don't call them racist. That's a cop out. That's a convicted pedophile committing suicide after being faced with multiple life sentences in prison with no chance of parole. No, point the mirror directly to their upbringing and show them the cracks in the code. Show them the holes in the fairy tale they were brought up on. So much of mainstream life in America is based on a lie anyway, right? Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter bunny. Add another one to the list for them. But since racism doesn't have a mascot, unless the Washington professional football team's logo or the old Cleveland Indians logo has entered the chat, this is what it needs to be. Explain, don't let them off the hook. Don't just tell them their fearless leader, 45, has them sipping the Kool-Aid - a la Jim Jones - tell them about how he doesn't respect their intellect and that's why he chose to run on their platform. Don't just tell them that donning the Confederate flag makes them a bigot. Hammer home how it doesn't make sense to champion America as being the global winners of Planet Earth but then they proudly parade the symbol of the side that lost the Civil War. Not only lost but had to come back to America with their tail between their legs. That's the flag that's supposed to offend me? Don't let them off easy but simply calling them a racist, ask them how it feels to have had a 400-year head-start and we've still managed to be in the race. Ask them how it feels that their children are coming up in our culture. Ask them how it feels that Whiteness, this thing held over our heads like a trump card, could be so great yet Black culture seems to be the dominant way of life in this country. If most could be vulnerable, maybe they'll admit to fear or uncertainty about what a world looks like where they are the minority. And no matter how much we say loudly and clearly that we are only looking for equality, again it doesn't compute.
Why?
Because this country and its fabric was never intended for equality. That wasn't just baked into the institutions of slavery and Jim Crow, it was woven perfectly into socialization - as natural to the instructions of the world as the cutting of the umbilical cord. âWhat's felt and lived doesn't need to be expounded on or explained. The nod Black people give complete strangers they pass by, especially when there ain't much of us around, can't be explained to someone who isn't Black. But we understand it. I don't need to explain why Black is better. I mean it's there in plain sight. With every attempt to hold us down, we still rise. So no, I don't need to yell and scream and call someone a 'racist'. I just need them to understand that I see through it. I read between the lines. I see your hurt. I see your faulty programming. I see you still believing in the Easter bunny. Still believing in this fictitious framing of the world. I see it and I know it hurts you to see us shining. No, you're not racist. You're weak. You lack functional intellect and critical thinking about the world around you. I won't call you a bigot. I'll point you to your own cognitive dissonance. The key to defeating your neighborhood racist, and coon too I ain't forget about y'all, is holding the mirror up. If they were idiotic enough to bait you by throwing out a hard -ER or an "All Lives Matter", make the battle worth their while. Give them something to stew on that'll fuck up their week. â
You are the company you keep.
Think about it. Think about your friends, the people you attract. In some way, shape or form they are in your circle for a reason. No matter how minor, these people share an element of like-mindedness with you. This should also be the case with Donald Trump and his relationship with the chairman and chief executive officer of World Wrestling Entertainment, Vince McMahon. Both men, the heir to their family business, utilized their charisma to grow the empire they were tasked with maintaining. Perhaps it was McMahon's profession--scouting WWE stars--that gravitated him towards Trump. Before Trump was able to take his WWE persona to the big stage of Washington D.C. he had a few sips of tea on McMahon's product developing his craft.
Think of the first WWE superstar that comes to mind: The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan. They had charisma. They had catchphrases. They moved fluidly between being a heel or a babyface--professional wrestling terms for the bad guy and the fan favorite. A 2013 WWE Hall of Fame inductee, we should have expected nothing less when Donald Trump took his talents to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The mantra: Make America Great Again. The merchandise. The rallies. The schoolyard bully approach to his rivals. Anyone that grew up watching the WWE knows this playbook all too well. And it is not surprising in this least this approach worked. The parallels between the sports world and the political ecosystem are closer than many of the latter may want to admit. While presidents have made an annual tradition of filling out NCAA March Madness brackets with the rest of the country, it is the man that attempted to purchase the Buffalo Bills NFL franchise that would officially merge these worlds. No, not the golfing piece--although he's done a lot of that--or working on his jump shot, a la Barack Obama, but purely the entertainment. Entertainment is lucrative. McMahon knows this and most importantly, Trump knows this. It got him a spot in the WWE Hall of Fame and it landed him in the highest position he could ascend to, President of the United States of America. Yesterday, December 18, 2019, Trump was faced with a credible threat to his "United States Championship" belt: the House of Representatives voting on two articles of impeachment for abuse of power. What's truly impressive is Trump is so good at this persona that people have been resigned to concede that Trump will make history becoming the first impeached President to be re-elected.
As a writer, I feel it is my responsibility to use my words to express my position. I never wish to name-call, particularly because I assume people to be rational actors. I've written on this platform about the status of political discourse so the last thing I wish to do is to stoop to such a level.
But...voting for Donald Trump in 2020 would be stupid (not calling the voter stupid but the act is inexplicably so). Here's why: Donald Trump is one of five U.S. presidents to be elected without winning the popular vote. The most recent of which being George W. Bush--the only president of the crew to win re-election. Of his peers: John Quincy Adams lost re-election to Andrew Jackson in 1828, Rutherford B. Hayes promised to serve one term and Benjamin Harrison lost to Grover Cleveland in 1892. Yet, even Bush--ranked second behind Trump in terms of number of votes trailed in the popular vote--required being in the midst of the Iraq War and the emotional toll of the September 11th terrorist attacks to narrowly win his second bid in 2004. Instead Trump has created a Venn diagram being the middle between the popular vote losers and the short list of presidents that have been impeached. Of his latter faction, the Impeached, Andrew Johnson failed to receive the nomination and, per the 22nd Amendment, Bill Clinton was not allowed to run for a third term. Thus, the 45th president will assumedly--pending the Senate impeachment vote--be the first impeached president to run to re-election. Given the tenor of politics in this day and age, it is a foregone conclusion Donald Trump would secure the nomination of his party set to face the victor in a crowded Democratic nominee race. So, let me tell you why this is stupid: 1a) You are asking me to believe that the person that did not win the popular vote in his first election--also a rookie to the world of politics--is going to win the popular vote this time around--fresh off an impeachment? 1b) Or better yet, you want me to believe he will lose the popular vote yet again and be bailed out a second time by the Electoral College? 2) As I tweeted, your job as President of the United States is two fold: don't get us killed and don't get the boot from your job. I assume part of the position is probably engaging in activity that is perhaps unsavory to the public and may potentially be an impeachable offense if made public. From this, your job is to not be so messy that this news gets out. If you are, you probably deserve to be impeached. If 42 other presidents, that have held this role over a span of 230 years, could manage to not get impeached then I'm led to think you're bad at this to be one of three. Which leads me to my last point... 3) Whether it has been strictly Democrats versus Republicans or some other combination of former parties, no President besides the first one, where there was no popular vote, has been elected unanimously. This means every single one of the remaining 44 presidents has had to deal with people that did not vote for him to hold America's highest honor. The idea that this impeachment is the result of a partisan agenda is laughable because again no one else, besides Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, gave their 'opponents' the opportunity to impeach. We are at an interesting time in our history with the 'Age of the Internet' in full force. Like similar revolutions, the future is up in the air; completely at the will of wherever this rollercoaster takes us. While Barack Obama began the standard of the @POTUS Twitter account, Donald Trump--15 years his predecessor's senior--has shown the dangers of this cheeky trend. Moving on from a world where news of Trump's impeachment would have come from the next day's newspaper, we could watch live from our Twitter accounts as the House deliberated on the President's fate. In the same feed, we could also hear Trump's rebuttal at a rally for his re-election in Michigan. What a world! I am someone that embodies the comedy and tragedy masks--I don't know what they're actually called. Some would say this is the Gemini in me, I would say growing up in America as a Black man created this dichotomy. The comedic side of me laughs heartedly at Trump's sophomoric pestering of his naysayers. The tragic side of me mourns for this country: too caught up in cheering for their own team to realize they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Where do we go from here? With the weaponization of social media, we are all concerned about a revolt taking place as Trump has proven masterful at mobilizing his base. While we are again stuck debating the Montagues vs the Capulets, we stand at a crossroads of someone with the capability to transcend it all. Benjamin Franklin's reply as to if America was a monarchy or a republic is truly a question you must determine for yourself. And if we are to move away from this democracy we so cherish, is this your king?! Housekeeping: I'll be rolling out new, regular content on here soon called B Squared. This will feature me sitting down with people--hopefully folks I know and maybe getting to meet people through referrals and the like--for you, the viewer, to hear their stories. I am excited to get started as it's a project I've had in mind for quite some time now. Of course, I'll need to dot the I's and cross the T's and so that's what's standing in the way at the moment but I'm truly pushing to get started before the new year comes. Stay tuned! I would imagine most of America has now heard the name Colin Kaepernick.
Sports has the ability to bring together people from walks of life that may not otherwise have an opportunity or a vehicle to ever cross paths. This narrative is typically present in any heartwarming tale we may come across related to athletics. Sometimes though, sports shows us exactly how far we have to go. How different our worlds and realities are. Those events offer us a chance to try to bridge those gaps but often time fail due to a lack of listening and the penchant to run away from conflict instead of staying put and reaching a breakthrough. Part of this is rooted in communication which I'm going to simply label as a common human flaw. Colin Kaepernick made waves as the quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers, made infamous by his decision to protest during the playing of the national anthem before a pre-season exhibition match. When asked about it afterwards, Colin would go on to express a desire to bring attention to what had become rampant acts of police brutality in America. In fact, he would later go on to reveal the exact incident that led to his awakening. Personally, I don't think Colin knew the ramifications of his actions fully. I don't believe he knelt with the idea in mind it would lead to everything that has since transpired. I'm also willing to bet he doesn't regret a thing either. Fast forward three years later, the greater San Francisco native has gathered his bearings. He operates Know Your Rights Camp, a multi-faceted initiative aimed at education and increasing awareness and knowledge in interactions with law enforcement. He has also been an avid supporter of other causes, donating $1 million to various organizations dedicated to fighting oppression. In between these acts, Kaepernick finds time to stay in shape and continue to work at the craft that introduced him to this newfound lane. Still technically a free agent, Kaepernick has remained ready--awaiting an opportunity to resume what was a promising career for the former Nevada Wolf Pack signal caller. It can be assumed that the time for said opportunity was presented to Kaepernick this past Saturday as the NFL offered to conduct a workout for the embattled QB. Why? What suddenly changed on a random Saturday before Week 11 action? I would imagine the man that kept a ticker since he was denied employment also had the same line of questioning. Despite doubts, Colin showed up to town. What happened next has created the recent back and forth between those following this weekend's adventure closely. Kaepernick's crew alleges the NFL's workout featured multiple stipulations: the signing of a waiver--typically not utilized--which would have forced the QB to forfeit the ability to sue the league, no control of the private footage from the workout that would be available to all 32 teams, as well as no knowledge of the receivers whom would be linked to his one, true shot at getting back in the league. Kaepernick's response--which we now know had to be in action well beforehand--was to move the location and time of the workout to a different venue roughly an hour away from the original site. The change of plans, complete with the QB's own production team, would be live streamed allowing the public the transparency Kaepernick desired. The conversation that would follow ranged from questions of Kaepernick's desire to play to applause at the quarterback executing a crafty Machiavellian maneuver. It is said the average NFL career lasts roughly three seasons. At 32 years old, Kaepernick's tenure spanned double, logging six seasons since his debut in 2011. For a man doing quite well equipped with a new path and purpose, exactly what is the reason to prostrate oneself in what one could easily deem to be a farce of a workout put on by the NFL? While people are excusably led astray in Kaepernick's insistence that he is awaiting a job, no one also could have seen his venue switch happen either. What does he stand to gain in feigning interest in a NFL gig? It plays further into the idea of the NFL actively playing a role in keeping the former Super Bowl participant out of the league; adding credibility to the backstory of a football player so moved by an epidemic that he put his career on the line in his attempt to draw attention to the matter. And arguably, the NFL--and the parties acting on its behalf--really haven't done much to disprove his narrative; in part, because this entire situation has been handled expertly by Kaepernick. While many were annoyed at Kaepernick's silence, the quiet enabled the quarterback to make the most of the undivided attention he had during his workout. Quiet has also allowed the NFL and their missteps to speak loudly. This out the blue workout attracted representatives from 25 teams, despite no updates or reports from Kaepernick of any teams having been interested after Kaepernick's first offseason as a free agent. And yet, the public is set up to believe that if Colin Kaepernick complied, the smoke would be cleared and all would be forgiven? Colin Kaepernick has his detractors: Stephen A. Smith of ESPN being a prominent one and one would imagine after allegations that Jay-Z played a role in the workout taking place, he would be a new foe as well. Yet there seems to be this loud cry for Kaepernick to tuck his tail and beg for mercy. Instead of being angry at Kaepernick for wearing a Kunta Kinte shirt to his workout, maybe inquire why. Maybe try to piece together the puzzle of what statement he may be leaving for people that share his sensibilities. It seems a bit sad to me to see people simply fold at the notion of "oh well, politics as usual" or "this is America". Yet when someone dares to take on 'the machine', he's left out to dry. Am I advocating for boycotting the NFL? No, I have not stopped watching the NFL and don't plan on doing so anytime soon myself. More so, I'd like to know where the 'community' goes from here? The same community that has no problem extolling the virtues of the late Nipsey Hussle and his calls for Black empowerment have been gifted a player that's willing to put comfort aside in the name of standing up for what's right. And what does he get in return? Ridicule. He is told to shut up and throw a football. Not by Laura Ingraham or anyone else from the side of the aisle those remarks are usually expected. Often the Black community questions why it cannot create a luxury brand the likes of Gucci or Louis Vuitton. Maybe it is because when we have a Phat Farm or FUBU, we underappreciate its value and importance. At the same time, Black people are not monoliths. This is part of the difficulty in a call for a united stand. We have grown to occupy various upbringings and points of view. But my call isn't for everyone to outright agree with Kaepernick but simply to appreciate his act. He is not the perfect messenger. But who was? King was not. Malcolm X was not. Yet we have the ability to understand the bigger picture with those leaders. And seem to fight the ability to do the same here. So much of the micro, and its influence, dictate our views today. We have social media. We are in an age where we want our news in 140-280 characters. We want instant gratification. We don't want to look at the long term play. We don't want to speculate as to how Kaepernick may be viewed down the line. All we know is he said he wanted to play and he didn't follow instructions. He deserves to be punished. He's a clown. Pathetic. How would the generations of yesteryear take to us simply laying down and accepting the status quo? What points does Kaepernick receive in an age where athletes left and right can't stay out of the courtroom? For someone that signed himself up for all of this, he's answered the call. The impact of what Colin Kaepernick's name is today, what it will be 20 years from now has reached a level the NFL would not have been able to manufacture for him. But sure Stephen A, tell us how he's such a bad example for the kids. Kaepernick may not be successful in getting employment in the NFL. If I am a betting man, I'd say he's probably come to terms with that a while ago. But you appreciate a small step in understanding how the path forged allows the next person to walk that much further. Many lauded Jay-Z's signing with the NFL as an ability to change the organization from the inside. Yet there was one man trying to do that and getting slandered by the people clamoring for the change the most. Say less. At some point the actual conversation needs to commence.
Throughout the many injustices of police brutality towards particularly unarmed people of color, at some point the microscope needs to zoom out to allow for actual progress to be possible. I believe this is the special situation that can spark the change the Black community has especially been clamoring for. Today, Amber Guyger--a 31 year old former Dallas police officer--was sentenced to 10 years in prison after being found guilty of the September 2018 murder of Botham Jean. Guyger claimed that the apartment she was entering the night of the incident was her own, and upon coming in contact with Botham--the true inhabitant of the apartment--fired two fatal bullets in reacting out of fear to the prospects of a potential burglar. The details of the case can be inspected and debated ad nauseam. After watching the testimony, I believe Amber Guyger was guilty of the crime in question and should have been sentenced to serve time in prison. Under questioning, Guyger's lack of appropriate follow-up action in face of what had been admitted to be a mistake--an intentional mistake--felt most damning. Yet the most poignant pieces, for me, came in the discussion of training; the prosecutor drawing a parallel to Guyger utilizing her training in assessing danger and incapacitating said threat to seemingly not continuing with training in administering aid such as CPR that could have saved Botham's life. While the temptation is within arm's reach to levy this charge of inconsistencies regarding training on Guyger, I have a better target in mind: Guyger's profession. The shooting did not take place in the line of duty, this circumstance could have befallen any of Guyger's co-workers on any given day. Being a police officer is not an easy job and there are bound to be grueling, disorienting days that may result in inadvertently being on the wrong floor or keying into the wrong apartment. There is no context to battle over here, where Botham Jean's actions or deeds could be misconstrued and misinterpreted in a rationale to justify Guyger's decision to fire her weapon. And it is just that action Guyger took in response to the emotion she faced in that moment that perfectly aligns her profession in the cross-hairs that the job should have found itself in similar cases of 'excessive force'. The prosecutor cross-examining Guyger spent a decent amount of time focusing on the training the former officer had in de-escalation. In my estimation, this appeared to be a topic Guyger did not feel too drawn to from her time in the academy. The point the prosecutor attempted to get across was that Guyger should have taken the time to figure out why a strange man could have been in her apartment in the first place. There was mention of repairs that were taking place around the general time of year the incident occurred. Even the door being ajar or noticing distinctions within the unit that did not coincide with Guyger's abode all serve as inquiries that might have come up in a de-escalation situation compared to what actually took place. This bit on de-escalation and the police is not solely lost on Guyger alone--it is a point I made previously in Protect and Serve--in calling to question exactly what role guns ultimately need to play in diffusing a tense situation. In the instances of Philando Castile or even Trayvon Martin, the stench of the true culprit is loud: fear. Particularly, the authority to respond to fear using lethal--and unnecessary--force. And yet instead of having this conversation, as a whole we get wrapped up in a question of if the assailant's primary motive was born out of racism. Here's what 'you' sound like when questioning Guyger, Zimmerman, or Daniel Pantaleo's penchant for racism; the same people that rush to point out that the perpetrators of mass shootings are mentally ill. That is, 'you' are assisting in pigeon-holing progressive dialogue by individualizing an epidemic. One mass shooting is not about the gunman, the same way Botham Jean's death is not about Guyger. The question of the latter should be: what is it about police and the concessions they are afforded that loans itself to the justification of numerous, uncalled for homicides of people of color? Again, it is that these humans--who may or may not be afflicted with possessing subconscious biases against people of color--have the authority to respond to these often times irrational-in-the-moment fears by shooting first instead of de-escalating first. And as I asked in Protect and Serve related to the profession of a police officer and mentioned regarding society overall in So It Goes: A Weak and Stupid Country, if we keep proving time and time again that we cannot responsibly handle guns then why do we have them? I ask again, of police officers specifically, if there are officers within the ranks and there is no ability to spot these people in the vetting process then is it truly asinine to begin to question the role guns play in de-escalation strategies? Might the de-escalation training have greater impact and effectiveness if officers did not have the authority to utilize lethal and excessive tools that seem more geared towards killing than it does calming tense situations? When 'you' are ready to have the real conversation, come see me--I've been waiting.
Perspective.
Is the glass half-empty or half-full? In an age of Instagram stories, one can truly manufacture their narrative. Purposefully cluing their followers to see a picture one chooses to paint. This reality rears its head every four years in America when it is time to either elect a new president or continue for one last ride with the incumbent. Yet in a particularly sadistic twist, America has managed to create a game where actual gripes with society fit "just right" into the parameters of the two political parties. Preventing actual progress from being reached as those firmly planted on either end of the spectrum have shut off the mechanism for having communicative dialogue. The maze--ultimately being a big circle--comes from the country's own mantra: where the insistence upon freedom of speech and individualism has allowed its people to hide under the cloak of blissful ignorance. On one hand, Americans can boast about the newest iPhone or the ability to directly tweet at its nation's highest elected official to give him a piece of their mind. This is freedom, democracy at play in a sandbox without a care in the world. All the while the problems piling up in the closet threaten to viciously rip the door hinges off. A scholarly article on addiction posits, "many, perhaps most, see drug abuse and addiction as social problems, to be handled only with social solutions, particularly through the criminal justice system...science has taught that drug abuse and addiction are as much health problems as they are social problems." A true statement of course yet this undoubtedly comes back to a social problem in asking who in society takes on the lion share of health problems? Richard Wilkinson, co-author of The Spirit Level, focuses on the strong correlation between inequality and poor health discovering that countries with the highest disparity amongst social stratification tend to have worse health, more violence, more drug problems and more judgmental of those inhabiting the lower socio-economic classes. The book utilizes data to show the ramifications of attempting to climb the social ladder with a glass ceiling: 41% of Blacks in the U.S. suffering from high-blood pressure compared to 27% of Whites whereas globally the percentage between the races are, on average, closer to being equal. To add the cherry on top, Wilkinson describes the rates of social mobility in these countries as being low. However, this does not stop the attempt to climb due to the notion expressed by a collegiate professor that inequality fuels ambition; creating an escape where society believes it is performing a good in crafting motivation from scratch. Thus, the burning question--especially where it is considered controversial to insinuate that healthcare be a right instead of privilege--is how does a country which aspires to be great stop the hamster wheel? Surely at some point, society has to understand that it is running a race with its shoelaces tied together. Surely, the people have to come to the realization that the institutions it lauds operates more so like the WWE and less like the Constitution that it tries so passionately to live up to. More so, how can a society hellbent on progress still have only 27 amendments to a 230 year old document? As the figurehead for capitalism, how do we--as a nation--ensure that we are not devoured by this -ism? If capital and the acquisition of it rules the day, where does the social responsibility of capitalists lie? Because if everyone is out for self and their own capital and well-being than to whom do we bestow the title of stewards to? In America a tale more often told than the most popular fairy tales and bedtime stories is of how money does not equate to happiness. We have heard that the money is no good being buried in a casket with the remainder of the earthly possessions capital has harvested. And despite all of the suggestions and advice, we speed past the climate change signs straight off the cliff. At some point, society needs to realize this planet is not a bottomless mimosa and read between the lines of the popular story, Frankenstein. We have created a monster and unfortunately this movie is playing out not on the big screen but in the actual, literal reality.
Discourse in this country doesn't seem to work very well. So what better way to start than with a few laughs and a sobering truth. Also anyway I can continue to prove that (good) comedians are some of the smartest people we have in society is a win in my book.
To set the stage, here's Jim Jefferies: Patriotism is defined as "love for or devotion to one's country". The President campaigned using the mantra, Make America Great Again. This phrasing -- regardless of how it falls apart once dissected -- is something that should appeal to all Americans. Everyone, across the globe, wants their country to be 'great'. In The Real Fanatic, I made a comparison between sports fans and Democrats/Republicans. In spite of differences in political affiliation, everyone should be a 'fan' -- in theory -- of their country. Part of being a fan is accepting when your team, your country in this instance, simply isn't a playoff caliber team. Such criticism is understood as love and affection when it's done in relation to a sports franchise but isn't viewed this way when applied to something that truly matters in the grand scheme -- i.e. the state of your country? "In the 1980s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defined mass murderer as someone who "kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location" (Krouse and Richardson, 2015)." Adding El Paso to World Atlas' list of The Deadliest Mass Shootings in History, America now accounts for 10 of the top 25 deadliest mass shootings of all-time. Of the 12 deadliest shootings on American soil, six have occurred in the past four years: San Bernardino (2015), Pulse (2016), Sutherland Springs (2017), Vegas (2017), Parkland (2018) and now El Paso. The incident Jim Jefferies refers to in Bare is the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania. Australia's response to this incident has resulted in only one mass murder since its automatic and semi-automatic gun ban. While Australia and America are not perfect 'apples to apples' comparisons of each other, the point is clear: make a firm, decisive decision and results will show. In Protect and Serve I linked to NPR's Gun Show episode. The WYNC production chronicled how the NRA, which began as an organization seeking to train draft-eligible Americans in marksmanship, turned into the 'don't-take-our-guns', lobbying and campaign-funding entity we know today. Yet the irony is that what remains true to this day is the initial need Huey Newton and Bobby Seale saw to carry guns in their neighborhoods in the first place: policing the police. Whether it is a police officer, a mass murderer or simply one person committing a homicide; what is abundantly clear is that too many bad apples have spoiled the bunch as it relates to trusting Americans to own guns responsibly. America's response to Sandy Hook should have been the same as Australia's response to Tasmania. Of the 27 deaths, 20 were six or seven-year-old first-graders who would have been starting the eighth grade this upcoming September. While smaller scale measures were enacted post-Sandy Hook, as a nation there should have been a stronger response. This could have done after Parkland as well, yet the changes we attempt to make are simply putting Band-Aids over gaping wounds. Rather it appears as if we are waiting for the next tragedy to happen on our doorstep to speak up about enacting change. In the meantime, we'll keep justifying the need for guns in our society and the dangerous 'us vs them' rhetoric spewed by Trump and his followers. We'll keep shouting Make America Great Again although Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Parkland and now El Paso all occurred during this president's tenure. As a fan of a quite dysfunctional sports team, let me help you out: America is pitiful. It is a country that lauds its freedoms, democracy and top-tier status but blatantly ignore what it has become today. Better yet, here is someone who can deliver that point a lot better than I can:
Society operates on a rather simple premise: I won't harm you if you don't harm me. Since we moved away from the 'I'm bigger and stronger than you and therefore I can take everything I want from you with no repercussions' worldview, we have collectively decided to be governed by ethics and an agreed upon framing of what should be. From this foundation we get laws. We get morality. We have a contract. An agreed upon existence. As a contributing member of the collective society you are agreeing to adhere to these laws and code of morals. Agreeing to this premise of not interfering with someone else's world. We have even created a career path for people we have entrusted to ensure we maintain this credo:
Police officers. As a police officer you are held to a higher standard as the practitioner of what is right and what is just. Are you expected to be perfect? No, of course not, you're a human being. But at a minimum, you are expected to care about the community you serve beyond this being a job. Especially considering that the work being done is often times a thankless task and you know the whole potential of losing your life in the line of duty bit. On that note consider this: we ask police officers to diffuse tense, sometimes dangerous situations. The skill in which we seek is more artistic, more of a people person; a person that can soothe and reason with someone. Besides the authority we prescribe to the position (cough what some people say about the Presidency cough), what proves your effectiveness is your impact. This is felt not given. It can also be assumed that--as civilians would be as well--police officers are just as afraid and fearful of their safety entering into some of these dangerous situations. Despite being equipped with bulletproof vests, a baton stick and/or taser, handcuffs and--what is the true game-changer--a gun; this is not enough to guarantee excessive force is not used in the diffusing of tension. While it may appear like a lot to ask for police officers to enter these unknowns 'completely blind', no one stated this was an easy job or responsibility. When a police officer is called to a scene it is never to serve as a hitman. It is never to serve as an assassin. It is to diffuse. When a police officer pulls a car over it is in the name of safety. Someone is driving too fast, or too recklessly and poses a danger to the rest of society in that moment in time. The police officer's job in this instance is to stop this person's action and reinforce safety. This is done by pulling the vehicle over, observing the person's current status and either issuing a citation or letting them off with a warning. Even in a hypothetical where a person is less cooperative and maybe has a weapon threatening the lives of innocent bystanders, a police officer's duty here is to calm and diffuse. If the weapon wielder is not listening to commands to cease their behavior that person is to be removed from the situation. Not have their life taken from them but have the weapon separated from the person. Apprehend the person and take them to a place away from society where they can await an opportunity to be dealt a consequence for the social contract they breached. A police officer is not judge, jury or executioner. A police officer is the middle man. Bringing the person alive to a court of their peers to answer to the disturbance that person initiated. The end. This is all common sense. Enough is enough. If there are no measures for police to answer to the 'fear' that causes them to shoot first and ask questions later than I simply ask this: why have guns? If we cannot identify the subconscious blind spots where an officer sees a person and becomes more inclined to shoot and kill out of fear, then we should proactively take the ability to end a life with the pulling of a trigger from that authority figure. Is that how you would describe what happened here? Or how about here? So in the case of a Starbucks barista asking a group of police officers in Tempe, AZ to either leave the premises or relocate away from a customer, maybe the customer is not wrong for being fearful. We are asked to understand when police officers armed with the ability to shoot without punishment are afraid. Given the current temperature, that first video being in Tempe, that Starbucks customer has every right to feel threatened. I'd say when a group of people reports being afraid of the force that is supposed to keep them safe, we may have a broken system on our hands. I know nothing of the type of city that Tempe is. But with the relationship many people in our most vulnerable cities feel about police, something needs to be fixed. It is interesting that the ones most at risk of being victims of crime seem to be the people who need the police most. Yet these are also the people that seem most distrustful of police. These incidents aren't even the biggest issue we have with guns. I haven't mentioned Parkland or Sandy Hook or Vegas yet. I haven't mentioned Charleston yet. In a country seemingly obsessed with guns, there is a lengthy discussion to be had in changing our association with these weapons of mass destruction. I do not have an answer for ridding America of mass shootings. However, a starting place is our police force. Instead of viewing this as a move that makes police officers susceptible to violence perpetrated against them, view this as a sense of calm to the people these officers serve. Think of this as a pledge to, I don't know, protect them. A soothing voice to say 'I want to help make sure you and everyone around you is safe' compared to the 'scared and react' voice likely heard as a police officer has just fired numerous bullets into someone who ultimately posed no danger at all. As Independence Day has just passed, we often hear people proudly boast about America. I'd also make a correlation that these same people feel a comfort and pride in its institutions. That a segment of the population does not feel that, and openly clamors for it, should be telling. With the comical history that is the great gun debate, making a small concession to restore faith in the Blue Lives that matter so much seems like the social contract we really should be agreeing to.
I assume every black person has heard about 40 acres and a mule. Doing research for this post, I actually learned details but the gist was always known: The idea of what is owed to us to make amends for slavery, Jim Crow and like-policies/laws both overt and subtle.
I'm on the fence about reparations to be honest. The sociologist in me hates the idea that reparations has become weaponized. It's cool and in, the new fad. Yet the conversation exists solely on the surface with people discussing the basis of reparations without going into particulars. The pro-crowd needs to be well versed on the subject. Know what you are asking for. Know what your value is. My side of the argument, or really just my hesitancy on the topic, stems from history. Being aware of America and how this country plays ball, the idea that anything being given to anyone on the 'bottom of the totem pole' doesn't ever actually work out. Some see green pastures ahead, I see it as par for the course. For the uninitiated, 40 acres and a mule speaks to a post-slavery 'Special Order' that sought to provide the formerly enslaved a piece of the land they toiled on. Everything appeared all set with this measure until President Lincoln's successor reversed the order giving the lands back to the slave owners. No, I don't think all would've been fixed from Special Order #15 but here you have a specific initiative with the idea that this 'good' goes to former slaves. The same can be said in the present conversation about reparations: who is to say a future President doesn't try to reverse whatever reparation is decided upon, as surely this wouldn't be executed for quite some time even if HR-40 continues on. My second warning is the phrase: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Although far from reparations (in fact still very much the act of oppression) the entire story of Native American reservations give me pause in this idea that the government will give away land and suddenly we have this fantasy level of autonomy and sovereignty. Maybe this is where my skepticism turns to cynicism but I see more Native American reservation (or really any inner city you want to select in America) than I see this real life version of Wakanda. Nevertheless, these are my initial thoughts. My pleas to handle this topic in a delicate fashion. Michael Render (professionally known as Killer Mike), creator of Netflix's Trigger Warning, had this to say: Mike drops way too many gems throughout that entire interview and I encourage you to check out the entire 26 minutes when you have the time. But in the section I used, Mike expresses the same--much better worded--caution that I share. If reparations is something tangible like the $2 million example Mike gave, what happens then? Does this $2 million reparation turn into the 'We gave you a Black president' line? Injustices will not disappear with the giving of land or the giving of money. $2 million is not the cost of Trayvon Martin or Sandra Bland. $2 million does not take back what happened to Kalief Browder or better yet the Central Park Five. I don't draw those lines of comparison to equate reparations with payment for those heinous acts but simply to introduce this into the discussion overall. Gentrification proves society doesn't have a problem with throwing money into the revitalization of cities. As such, shouldn't your push and pursuit of reparations be centered around atoning for the fear/hate that isn't so visible? If money can be burned through as Mike alluded to in the clip, and simply having the land doesn't say anything else about the state of the people on it, then shouldn't we be appealing to amending the real element of all of this that truly threatens our safety and progress: the minds of those with the power to maintain the status quo? At the Sunday meeting Mike mentioned, that would certainly be receiving my vote. I'm very here for analogies. I'm shit at them in my mind. But other people? Amazing. Michelle Wu. You got my vote boo.
I am of the belief that the current political structure is BS. I think it's faker than professional wrestling. These two parties work together to create a monopoly, drawing the line splitting issues and topics and then watching them play out against one another in their very own Super Bowl. I find this backwards and stupid. In no other arena would you be wholly dependent on these two parties without questioning the structure of the party, the purpose of the party. Basically I think we act like baseball does about issues pertaining to the Democrats and Republicans and just chalk it up to one of the worse words in the English language: tradition. Now that you've gotten my two cents, here's Michelle Wu--an at-large Boston city councilor--giving her three cents. "Want to fix our broken democracy? Have a block party" Basically, Michelle says when people are thinking of these hot button issues like immigration or abortion they are acting alone and out of a lack of trust. This distrust comes from not being able to anticipate other people. And instead of viewing this simply in the macro sense it's actually very micro. You don't know your neighbors. From her op-ed in the Boston Globe, "Forty years ago, 1 out of 3 Americans spent time with their neighbors at least twice a week. Today 4 out of 5 people don't see their neighbors regularly, and one third don't interact with any neighbors at all." Now a certain someone already told you about social media and that's part of it for sure but the absence of block parties really does feel significant. I grew up with them in the Weequahic section. Looked forward to them as a kid to ride my bike down the street without having to look out for cars, to go in anyone's backyard for food, just seeing everyone on the block happy and festive. In fact, I'd honestly say that did a lot for the community in the Weequahic section. That helped everyone to get to know who their neighbors were and through that those people became part of your extended family. I'd also guess that this is where that phrase 'It takes a village to raise a child' might have come from. Not only did we have block parties (and go to neighboring streets block parties (I see you Pomona and Weequahic Ave) but the Weequahic section itself used to throw a festival down Bergen Street in the summer with music and food. That was my childhood and that's why I'm so fond of where I grew up despite well Newark being Newark. I wouldn't have been able to express it so eloquently, so effortlessly but this is the fix. People getting to know their neighbors. People getting to know the stories of the people they judge from afar on the nightly news. This puts a face to topics like immigration and abortions. Not so much that those are things you learn about your neighbors at block parties lol but maybe you think twice about those topics knowing people outside of your typical comfort zone. Politics aren't black and white (which speaking of analogies and phrases that one is the absolute worst). Yet that's exactly what the two party system wants you to think. They want to ask you a question and have you answer and that answer is where you fall on the matter. That answer dictates who you vote for. But the world is very much a shade--multiple in fact--of gray. It's nuanced and complex. Just like people are. And so maybe you aren't having attending a block party soon (you should) but maybe try striking up a conversation with your neighbor, it might help you feel attached to the place you live and feel happier about mankind in the process. Maybe. |
Details
Ty FosterQuestion everything. WQHC Archives
June 2020
Categories |