It is tough to understand just what the most recent class of demonstrators really want. They shout for "justice" and for "dead policemen." But then the media says that they don't really want that. So...when will the demonstrators speak for themselves and say what they truly want?
Are we to accept that the triumvirate of President Obama, Al Sharpton, and Eric Holder...and their acolyte, Mayor deBlasio...speak for the group as a whole? I wonder. None of that group seems truly dedicated to the plight of black neighborhoods except as it fits and advances their own purposes. So...what, indeed, is the desire of the unhappy resident of a black community.
The one thing I have heard and read that repeats itself is that they want the police force to be "representative." In Ferguson that meant that almost all the police were white and didn't understand how to police a black neighborhood. That does sound reasonable. It certainly made sense to me. But then the question is raised just how to accomplish that. Because, if you do get the desired percentage of black officers, you would still have some percent of white officers continuing to police the black neighborhood.
Ah, I hear, but those white police can be trained to understand how to police the black community "properly." Oh, really?
I have had black acquaintances and friends tell be that it is impossible for any white person to understand the attitude of any black man or women; that without experiencing it, you just cannot know what it is like. Well, that sounds accurate too. Although I think we can all try a bit more to understand those who come from different backgrounds.
Consider the facts that underlie the recent minority (make that "black) deaths in conflict with the police: first, the (white) policeman in Ferguson was undeniably being attacked and the dead (black) teen would undeniably faced felony charges of attacking a police officer if he had survived; second, in NYC, the supervising police officer of that arrest was black and there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that there was any racially-based "misunderstanding" of the circumstances of the arrest. (And, let it be noted that there was in fact no actual "choke-hold"; that the deceased died because of the combination of being held down and his own respiratory issues.)
So each of these events were fact based...not racially oriented at all, except by those who wished to promote anarchy, violence, looting and burning. And those people were honored by comments by President Obama, and the additional gift of the presence of both Eric Holder and Al Sharpton, the President's "go-to guy" on racial issues (although, since he himself is black, one wonders why the President should have to have any assistance in understanding the black community and the nuances of their feelings and desires...but perhaps that is a subject for further discussion another day).
The recurring theme is "we want to be policed by black police officers because they will "understand."
That seems to suggest that they want to segregate the police force so that they can have justice. They will feel less "threatened" if they have black men in blue in their community.
Do any of you have any suspicions as to what the general populace, and the media in particular, might have to say about such a suggestion if it were made by people in a white community suggesting that they only wanted "white" police officers protecting their interests because only "white" officers "understood" them? Think that one would fly? Even get off the ground? Yet...that is what is the base of the desire of Mr. Obama, Mr. Holder and Mr. Sharpton (No one quite knows what Mayor deBlasio wants or thinks...and no expects to understand that anytime soon.) They don't use, of course, the phrase "separate but equal" but they refer to "representational" numbers of minority officers.
For some reason, I have always thought that the laws of this country were not "nuanced" by the culture of those who broke a law; that if you were rich or poor, it was still wrong to steal, kill and hurt people. I believe(d) that one spoke civilly to others, obeyed directions given to you by an officer of the law and, if disturbed by it, argue the propriety about the order later...in a court of law. You didn't talk back to your parents, your boss or a policeman. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not recall any indication that those absolutes were colored ( no pun intended) by the race, nationality, skin pigment, or social position of either the policeman (or other person of authority) of the person being directed to behave in a certain way. Did I miss that? I don't think so.
Should be come to accept that black, and other minority communities should be policed by people of their own race, background and gender, it will not be long before those minorities will demand that their teachers by of the same race; that they have bankers of their own race; that all of their political representative be of their own race.
Will the occasional white resident in a black community then have the right to demonstrate, damage, hurt and burn down the community while demanding that a white person hear their grievance?
And I finish with the observation that a large portion of responsibility for the ongoing unrest lies with the media. They have allowed and helped to spread false claims and comments about the triggering events that only serve to artificially support those who make a living in the Race Industry, fomenting unrest and gaining notoriety for themselves. Even as they claim "with hands up" that they are only reporting the "news" they are remarkably selective in their reporting, so the claim of innocence rings hollow indeed.
If the black demonstrators get what they seem to be asking for, I suspect that in the end they will rue the day that they allowed some people to "lead" them down this path. They will not be better off for traveling that directions.