Baltimore: When the Future Looks Back (op-ed)
Sometimes the significance or ramifications of an event can not be seen in the present. History puts the totality of an event into perspective.
Imagine. In 2020 a headline reads: Baltimore, Its Impact Five Years Later. The article retells the story: Black man dies in police custody, police are suspended, there’s an investigation, riots break out, the investigation is complete, the police officers are charged with felonies, and the people of Baltimore cheer.
Then the future article describes the past five days in 2020. Another Black man is killed by the police in an American city. Riots erupt after prayer vigils during the course of the police probe to determine indictment. After several clashes between police and protesters/rioters gun fire is exchanged. The result: protesters/rioters and policemen are dead. A state of emergency is declared and The National Guard enters to enforce a curfew. And for the first time in American history government officials discuss imposing restrictions on the first amendment right to assemble.
The question posed by the future article is: How did we get to such violence in 2020? And the article points to the Baltimore riots of 2015.
First the future article contrasts the official response between Ferguson, Missouri (A 2014 riot forgotten in the future) and Baltimore. Ferguson officials were criticized for the militarization of their police force. It was suggested the presence of an occupying army in a majority black suburb encouraged resistance (Because the police symbolize the white power structure) instead of restoring peace. In Baltimore after the violence started the mayor stated to the press, “I worked with the police and instructed them … To make sure that protesters were able to exercise … free speech …We also gave those that wished to destroy space to do that as well.”
The future article explains that since the authorities in Ferguson were white the protesters/rioters didn’t wait for the (white) authorities to complete their (white) investigation before they turned to violence. Their impatience was rationalized by black contempt for the white power structure. But in Baltimore the protesters/rioters didn’t allow black authorities to complete their probe either. They resorted to the same violent ritual. But the black authorities didn’t emphasize they are not the white power structure. They didn’t demand support for a black administration that was handling the situation through the process of law.
No. The black authorities, probably sympathetic to rage against police brutality, designated areas of space for destruction, and this designated area was probably viewed by the black authorities as space owned by the white economic power structure. The future article highlights a 2015 editorial featured on a black website titled: Not Looters, Liberators: Baltimore Rebels. The editorial stated, “So what people were taking medicine! [Referring to a CVS that was looted] Pharmaceutical companies are making millions off the poor and could care less about them … I don’t blame them for taking fresh food, new shoes, clothing, and water. These are the basic needs capitalism refuses to provide.”
According to the future article the Baltimore riots explained why the riots in Ferguson erupted before the investigation was complete. The issue of race disguised the blatant attempt to destroy capitalist enterprise. But there was no disguise in Baltimore. And when the black local officials granted “space to destroy” they became silent partners with an anti-capitalist neo-anarchist movement that doesn’t distinguish between white or black local authorities. To them the political system is subservient to the economic system, and capitalism when used in this context is synonymous with white supremacy.
Cheers echoed across Baltimore when the black state’s attorney charged the officers. The state’s attorney said, “To the people of Baltimore and demonstrators across America, I heard your call for ‘No justice, No peace.” This statement is reactionary and it legitimized violence as a political tactic for a movement cloaked in civil rights but has nothing to do with its traditions.
The future article suggests the Baltimore riots of 2015 provided the first false sense of accomplishment that encouraged more violence and led to a future standoff that movements of nonviolence were dedicated to prevent.
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 5/6/15
Imagine. In 2020 a headline reads: Baltimore, Its Impact Five Years Later. The article retells the story: Black man dies in police custody, police are suspended, there’s an investigation, riots break out, the investigation is complete, the police officers are charged with felonies, and the people of Baltimore cheer.
Then the future article describes the past five days in 2020. Another Black man is killed by the police in an American city. Riots erupt after prayer vigils during the course of the police probe to determine indictment. After several clashes between police and protesters/rioters gun fire is exchanged. The result: protesters/rioters and policemen are dead. A state of emergency is declared and The National Guard enters to enforce a curfew. And for the first time in American history government officials discuss imposing restrictions on the first amendment right to assemble.
The question posed by the future article is: How did we get to such violence in 2020? And the article points to the Baltimore riots of 2015.
First the future article contrasts the official response between Ferguson, Missouri (A 2014 riot forgotten in the future) and Baltimore. Ferguson officials were criticized for the militarization of their police force. It was suggested the presence of an occupying army in a majority black suburb encouraged resistance (Because the police symbolize the white power structure) instead of restoring peace. In Baltimore after the violence started the mayor stated to the press, “I worked with the police and instructed them … To make sure that protesters were able to exercise … free speech …We also gave those that wished to destroy space to do that as well.”
The future article explains that since the authorities in Ferguson were white the protesters/rioters didn’t wait for the (white) authorities to complete their (white) investigation before they turned to violence. Their impatience was rationalized by black contempt for the white power structure. But in Baltimore the protesters/rioters didn’t allow black authorities to complete their probe either. They resorted to the same violent ritual. But the black authorities didn’t emphasize they are not the white power structure. They didn’t demand support for a black administration that was handling the situation through the process of law.
No. The black authorities, probably sympathetic to rage against police brutality, designated areas of space for destruction, and this designated area was probably viewed by the black authorities as space owned by the white economic power structure. The future article highlights a 2015 editorial featured on a black website titled: Not Looters, Liberators: Baltimore Rebels. The editorial stated, “So what people were taking medicine! [Referring to a CVS that was looted] Pharmaceutical companies are making millions off the poor and could care less about them … I don’t blame them for taking fresh food, new shoes, clothing, and water. These are the basic needs capitalism refuses to provide.”
According to the future article the Baltimore riots explained why the riots in Ferguson erupted before the investigation was complete. The issue of race disguised the blatant attempt to destroy capitalist enterprise. But there was no disguise in Baltimore. And when the black local officials granted “space to destroy” they became silent partners with an anti-capitalist neo-anarchist movement that doesn’t distinguish between white or black local authorities. To them the political system is subservient to the economic system, and capitalism when used in this context is synonymous with white supremacy.
Cheers echoed across Baltimore when the black state’s attorney charged the officers. The state’s attorney said, “To the people of Baltimore and demonstrators across America, I heard your call for ‘No justice, No peace.” This statement is reactionary and it legitimized violence as a political tactic for a movement cloaked in civil rights but has nothing to do with its traditions.
The future article suggests the Baltimore riots of 2015 provided the first false sense of accomplishment that encouraged more violence and led to a future standoff that movements of nonviolence were dedicated to prevent.
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 5/6/15
Comments
Post a Comment