BlogWood: MT Archives

Some people just don't get it

Some people just don’t get it. Must be my fault. Let’s see if I can reeducate.

In response to this post where I take Sticks of Fire blogger Tommy to task for calling The Uhuru movement “anti American,” I got a letter from Tommy. Tommy’s worried that I might post some of his comments out of context, so I’ll reprint the entire letter here, but I’ll insert my comments and responses to his arguments as needed.

(note: this post got way to long to leave here on the front page. Click the link that says "Continue reading..." to see Tommy's letter and my response.)

Subject: Your blog post re:Tommy, InPDUM and St. Pete Cops. To: norwood@blogwood.com Norwood,

You made quite a few assumptions about me in your
post. Some are close. Some are not so correct.

I don’t think you are too harsh on the St. Pete Police
in general. Racism does exist in that police force
(it may even still be pervasive), just as it exists in
many institutions, and at the very least, you and your
blog get people to think about these things (even if
they then do nothing about it). However, I do take
issue with the Tyron Lewis fiasco and the similar
McCullough tragedy.

I know very well that police oppression and violence
against minorities is a significant problem
nationwide. I don’t feel I’m an “apologist” for the
cops, but I do think they have a very, very difficult
job. Can you put yourself in that officer's position?

Let’s see: the officer’s position? That would be in front of the car that Tyron was driving, where the officer had placed himself so that he could get a good kill shot off at a teenage driver who was panicking due to the fact that he was carrying a small amount of drugs. The officer’s position did not change much as he pumped 3 bullets, in a very tight pattern, through the windshield and into Tyron.

The officer claims that Tyron was trying to run him over, but witnesses dispute this allegation, and Tyron’s foot was on the brake when he was killed.

Perhaps there would have been no killing, but there
would still have been a messy arrest, or a longer car
chase, or both.

So, you are assuming that Tyron would have fled? Maybe, but he was never given a chance. If he had fled, there probably would have been a chase. That’s one of the problems. Why do we have policies for the police to chase in situations like this? A routine traffic stop. Tyron was not about to go on a murderous crime spree. He was not endangering anyone’s life.

The idea that the police should engage in high speed pursuit of suspects in minor crimes is absurd. Innocent bystanders are quite often injured or killed during these incidents, and as often as not, the justification used is that the suspects were in a stolen car. So, a teenager steals a car and takes it for a joy ride. He should be punished, but sending the police out to engage in a dangerous pursuit through densely populated urban areas is overkill to say the least. In fact, having a trained policeman engage in a high speed pursuit against a youth who has very little driving experience, much less training, is like giving a blanket death sentence to car thieves. The reaction (chase) is absolutely not justified by non-violent crime against property.

Just as generalizations of all
members of a race are incorrect, so is simplifying by
saying “all cops.” Furthermore, I have not “bought
into” the idea of American equality. I have bought
into the idea that there CAN BE American equality 
but we as a society are not anywhere close to that.

You’re right. We are not anywhere close to having true equality in this country. I don’t recall saying anything about “all cops” . I am referring to the policies of police departments in general, and specifically to the policies of the St. Pete police. If a cop is a member of the St. Pete police, then he is bound by their regulations and policies. It is more than fair to refer to the department as a whole in this context.

As far as the falling crime rate  yes I’m a bit of a
cheerleader for the area here, so I’m not afraid to
mention good news such as this. And you are right -
this is a tourist state, and tourism certainly
sustains many of the jobs here, so it makes good
economic sense for us to note positive advances. If
you read my blog, you will see that I document the
“not so good” about the area as well (admittedly not
as loudly).

Good news? Did you even read my post? Rising incarceration rates are not good news for anyone. Crime rate statistics are bullshit numbers that are used by politicians and police departments, as well as by chambers of commerce, for their own narrow agendas. Crime rates have little basis in reality.

Your original contention that rising incarceration is the primary catalyst for falling crime rates is what set me off in the first place. The prison population in this country is now over 2 million strong, and growing. We will be paying monetary and societal costs of our shortsighted penal policies for generations. People in jail do not necessarily deserve to be there, and minorities and other economically disenfranchised groups contribute a disproportionately high percentage of inmates to our penal institutions.

It comes down to this: if you support higher incarceration rates under our current “justice” system, then you are supporting and helping to perpetuate racist policies.

In addition, I certainly believe it makes absolutely
no sense to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders.
Current drug laws may indeed be racist. But it is the
law. Until the law is changed, it is what it is.

Tommy, if you admit that drug laws are racist, and your reaction is to shrug your shoulders and say “it is what it is,” then that makes you a ... well, you do the math.

I find it laughable that you say that “the poor black
person may be forced to use” drugs on the street. If
you are poor, perhaps you would be better spending
your hard-earned money on getting a safer place, and
then purchase your illegal entertainment. (yes,
that’s very simplistic, but it makes sense to me)
(side note: I’m addicted to cigarettes, it seems an
awful lot of people are addicted to food  everyone
has their personal demons)

Okay - where do we draw the line? Should the poor be allowed to drink beer? Should the poor be allowed to buy cigarettes? How ‘bout a little TV in the evening? Maybe poor people should be required to spend all of their money on food and shelter. And if they don’t then we can have the police shoot them for breaking the law.

In fact, in Tampa, it is now against the law to consume beer from a glass bottle, unless you are on private property. That law was passed with much talk about keeping the Gasparilla festival safe for carousing, breast-flashing celebrants, but it is aimed squarely at Tampa’s black population. When was the last time you saw a wealthy white person chugging a quart of Colt 45?

So, you’re borderline homeless. Some nights you sleep on the streets. Some nights you luck into one of the very few shelter beds that are around, but to get one you have to be inside by early early evening, and you have to abide by the prison-like house rules. Occasionally you have enough cash for a week at a rooming house, but cash is hard to come by.

You work out of a labor pool, getting up a 4am to compete for a few low-paying backbreaking jobs. You are driven to the jobsite in the back of a pickup, rain or shine. You put in 8 hours or more of hard physical labor. At the end of the day, if you’re lucky, the “boss man” might actually pay you what he promised (maybe $50 or $60 if he’s generous) and drop you off near to where you were picked up.

Don’t you deserve a break? A beer, or some recreational drugs to take the edge off? Well, unless you can afford a hotel room, you’re likely to be arrested or ticketed or shot by the police before you have a chance to enjoy your buzz.

Norwood, why is it that only “a few exceptional
people” are able to crawl up and out of the economic
morass? It’s hard to do. Very hard to do. But it’s
not impossible. You do not have to be “exceptional.”

Uh, you defeat your own argument. Something that is very hard but not quite impossible can only be accomplished by the exceptional or the exceptionally lucky.

I am dead center of the middle-class, but how did I
get here? It is not because anything was handed to
me. I have worked (and continue to work) two jobs for
most of my adult life. For most of my life, I have
not been able to go to Bucs games or Lightning games
on a whim. I’d love to go to the playoff game
tonight, but I cannot afford it  so I won’t. I
suppose somewhere down the line, it’s certainly
possible that I was awarded a job (or two, or ten)
over another candidate based on my race. But I have
been turned down for many, many jobs over the years,
also. I just had to go find another. I never thought
the government (or anyone) owed me anything. America
is the land of opportunity. Everyone has an
opportunity. Nothing else. And there is definitely
no handouts (whether there should be is another
issue).

Yes, everyone has an opportunity. But not everyone has an equal opportunity.

Jim Hightower likes to say of George W. Bush that he “was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.” It’s a good analogy and I’m going to stretch it as far as I can.

So, if life is a baseball game, and the rich are already on base when they are born, then most of America’s middle class is born in the dugout, or on deck. Anyway, they’re pretty sure to get a turn at bat, to get into the game.

The poor, on the other hand, are born one or 2 counties away from the stadium. They have no way to get to the stadium, and, in fact, they have not even been notified that the game is today or that there even is a stadium. Someone born in this situation is rarely going to get a chance to play, much less get on base.

So, unless you were born into extreme poverty, you did have something handed to you. You got a head start.

(Completely off topic, but in answer to your work situation): Tommy, you’re making the most of your life, working hard and scraping by. But why work 2 jobs? Most people who work 2 jobs do so out of economic necessity, and it sounds like you fit this mold. We have been brought up in this country to believe in the American work ethic. But should you really have to work 2 jobs just to make a living?

In Europe, 30 hour work weeks and very liberal vacation time is the norm. Wages are such that a person can actually be quite comfortable with “only” one job, and economies are strong. Guess what: if you pay people a fair wage and give them time off to enjoy life, they’ll spend money and further stimulate the economy.

Anyway, in this country, there has never been such a wide gap between the haves and have nots. Me, you , and just about everyone we know are in the “have nots” category (even though we have a lot more then the “have nones”).

Perhaps “anti-american” isn’t exactly a correct
description of InPDUM. That was a reference to the
repeated mention of African People, rather than Black
or even African-American. (I’ll assume now - please
tell me if I’m wrong - that “African People” is a
euphemism for “African-Americans.”)

Uh, Tommy, here is the 1st line item from the InPDUM platform: “We Demand National Democratic Rights and Self-Determination for African People in the U.S. and Around the World.” I’ll assume now - please tell me if I’m wrong - that “the U.S.” is a euphemism for “America.”

And based on their entire platform, I wouldn’t call them
“pro-community” either. They don’t want to include
any other race. They are not calling for an end to
racial disparities. They instead call for
preferential treatment. They want “Community Control
of the Police,” but their words and actions indicate
they want zero consequences for black criminals (not
just talking about drug crimes here, either). In
fact, they want complete “withdrawal” of the police
(Do you think the crime rate would go down if this
were the case?).

Actually, what InPDUM calls for is “Community Control of the Police in the African Community and the Immediate Withdrawal of the Terroristic Police and Military Forces from the African Community.” Community control does not equal no police. You would rather keep the status quo in which black and other minority people have their rights violated and worse on a daily basis by a police force that is sent out to intimidate and keep people down?

Yes, I think that criminal activity would tend to decline within a community that is given local control over criminal justice.

The entire point of this platform is that black communities have never ever been given an equal chance in this country. Typically, when a black community defies the odds and becomes prosperous, an Interstate Highway is rammed through its heart (Tampa and St. Pete) or it’s simply burned to the ground like Rosewood.

InPDUM calls for “Mandatory African
History” in the public schools. Again, assuming they
mean Black American History, I’m all for it. That is
a horrific story (and it continues today) that should
never be forgotten by any race. Demanding African
Community Control of Health Care and Housing is a call
for segregation. Parasitic Merchants and Slumlords
should be removed from all areas of the community, not
just the “African” community. They want a separate UN
representative  more segregation. The “Parasitic
Relationship” they speak of does benefit rich whites 
but certainly not ALL whites. Fair treatment and
self-determination? I think preferential treatment
and a dereliction of accountability.

So, without a white overseer, black people could never survive, much less make decisions for themselves? We should keep the status quo because not ALL white people are wealthy parasites? Again, with the deck stacked so heavily against the black community, all white people benefit from this parasitic relationship. Most benefit indirectly, but the benefits are undeniable (Tommy: “I suppose somewhere down the line, it’s certainly possible that I was awarded a job (or two, or ten) over another candidate based on my race.”).

As with most
intelligent causes, InPDUM’s platform includes areas
that are essential to American equality.
Unfortunately, there is no call for personal
responsibility. And some ridiculous demands for
segregation. And in their supposed rigid defense of
all blacks, the criminals get their support and calls
for violence, but the black business owners in that
neighborhood are ignored.

Tommy, are you purposefully taking the platform’s demands out of context? The idea of personal responsibility is inherent in the demands for self determination, as is the implied support for locally controlled (African) businesses, a necessary component in any community. It is a tired old trick of closet racists to turn around and accuse the victims of institutionalized racism of being anti-white (anti-American?) or segregationist. The fact of the matter is that whenever a community of color attempts to compromise and live within the arbitrary confines that the white ruling class has set for it, the white ruling class breaks its promises and demands ever more concessions (See countless examples in Native American history).

InPDUM is not pro-criminal. They are calling for fair treatment. Many people are locked up in this country simply for standing up for their rights. (See Leonard Peltier, for one example.)

One of the most powerful events in St. Pete history is
when Yeshitela stormed into city hall and tore down
that mural in 1966. Not quite as significant, but
definitely noteworthy, was the uprising in ’96, which
led to the ongoing economic investments in Midtown.
However, Yeshitela is not so good at picking his
battles anymore, seemingly ascribing to the theory
that any press is good press.

Actually, Omali Yeshitela has been active in politics - he ran for mayor - and, lately, has been a local leader of the peace movement.

Finally, my posts (including this email here) are
written with very simplistic view  I do believe that
any problem can be overcome. And I do not live in
fear of cops coming after me or my family. But I am
not so shallow, or stupid to think that “there is no
race problem.” Racism is pervasive and widespread.
But as my post said, to support criminals will earn
InPDUM no sympathy, support or respect. Instead I
think InPDUM only helps to create greater friction.

Again, a cheap copout. Often, friction is necessary to affect meaningful change. This quote springs to mind:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Earlier I mentioned that American equality can be
accomplished (it’s better now than it was in 1966,
1976, and 1986, but there’s still a LONG way to go).
The government is not going to do it all by itself.
Helpful necessities include personal responsibility,
fair treatment, focus, voting power, education,
sacrifice, and yes, radical acts (among many other
things).

But InPDUM’s agenda won’t get us there. Their rigid
defense of criminals and threats of violence most
certainly will not get us there, and may even lead us
in the opposite direction.

Tommy

PS: I haven’t yet decided if I will post this on my
blog. If you choose to make this email public, please
feel free, but I encourage you not to post any part
out of context.

I’m afraid it’s you who are taking things out of context. I recommend that you purchase and study Howard Zinn’s A people's history of the United States : 1492-present for some proper historical context.

Norwood

Posted by Norwood at May 19, 2004 11:35 AM