Even as the reports and news stories of police violence toward citizens come in, there is a resistance by some to admit that there is something drastically wrong with the way too many (not all) law enforcement officers deal with people of color.
The incident in New York involving former tennis star James Blake was so blatant that it inspired an apology to Blake from New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton, but as Blake noted, he is only getting an apology because of his status in our society. Were he a normal, unknown citizen, his case would not inspire such attention... or such an apology.
The continuing violence is not new; almost everyone has said so. It is part of the legacy of policing in America, where police were allowed and encouraged to attack black people who had escaped slavery in order to get them back to their owners. The Fugitive Slave Act gave police officers permission to brutalize black people. Already dehumanized, the Fugitive Slave Act led to the demonization of black people, especially black men, which in turn justified the treatment they received. This cry of protest about the lack of value of black people is not new...
The question, though, is how does this country change the narrative? More specifically, how does this country change policing so that these horrendous miscarriages of justice stop? That is part of the struggle, but it is more than that. How does the country change the narrative so that black people are not always receiving the "worst of the worst:" the worst schools, the worst jobs, the worst opportunities -- all a part of black life because of the color of their skin?
Too many people who criticize the Black Lives Matter movement seem not to be aware of the width and depth of what the movement is about. It is about what police do to black and brown people far too often, that's true, but it is also about behavior of American governments and institutions which have historically created and practiced policies which have caused undue stress and behemoth unfairness to American citizens on whose back this country was built.
In the 60s, the modus operandi was non-violence direct action. Members of the Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC) taught that violence would only beget more violence and would lead to no change at all. The Rev. C.T. Vivian said that members of the Movement were "taught how not to be angry," which seems phenomenal. Dr. King said that the goal of the actions of the Movement were "not to humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding." Calling the Movement of the 60s a spiritual movement, Dr. King, Dr. Vivian, and others said that those in the fight were called to "redeem the soul of America." Dr. King said that "Christ furnished the spirit and motivation for the movement, and Gandhi, the teacher of non-violence, furnished the method."
To be non-violent, King, Vivian, Jim Lawson and others taught, was "not a method for cowards." To be non-violent in the face of such abject humiliation and violence required the utmost strength.
But it is not clear that the young people leading today's movement would understand or appreciate the philosophy of the 60s movement, just as many of the young people during the 60s did not adhere to it. Part of the purpose of the 60s movement and the Black Lives movement is to make America live up to her claim to be a democracy. She is not, and, actually, the concept of democracy was not really a precept or desire of the Founding Fathers from the very beginning. Our Constitution wrote in racism and sexism. That made our foundation weak from the beginning and that weakness is pushing through in increments.
The fairness and egalitarianism that a democracy suggests is far from the reality of America's government. It is not only racial and sexual inequality that our Constitution wrote into our life-blood, but also economic inequality. The efforts and attention of the Black Lives Matter movement is directed at all of those inequities ...but the question remains, "How will America change the narrative? America does not want to change, nor does she think she should. How, then, will our country become what those of us who believe in real democracy believe it should be?"
Dr. King said, in the 60s, that America had an "anemic democracy," meaning that not enough life-giving principles were flowing through the veins of our philosophical infrastructure. We are oxygen-deprived, so to speak, as long as the inequities and a refusal to address them exist. Instead of criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement, the effort should be to understand the depth and seriousness of the problems the activists are facing and fighting.
They are fighting, ultimately, against the death of America. Anemia, untreated, causes serious consequences and can lead to death, whether that anemia exists in an individual or in a country.