This week I’m very excited to bring you a discussion between Rondale and Jabari, two black atheists who have differing views on Black Lives Matter and on race in America in general. I also interject a question and comment here and there to keep discussion going as well. I want to give a HUGE thank you to both guests for being willing to come on and discuss such a controversial topic as this, and for providing the audience and me with so much to think about!
Part 2 is early for patrons over at patreon.com/atheist!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 52:17 — 48.8MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Great discussion. But why don’t we discuss reasons why white shooters are captured unharmed? One thing missing from almost every discussion on this subject is the subject of de-escalation. Officers are not trained in de-escalation, but tend to de-escalate more with whites. De-escalation requires slowing down. When a officer rushes to interact, and feels that any back talk by brown people must be stopped IMMEDIATELY, then more brown people get shot. The legality of an interaction (such as Mike Brown) does not address the officer’s rush to get close and interact physically. Same with Tamir Rice and Eric Garner. Those cops rushed to physically interact, which made them afraid for their safety, and so they had a justifiable shooting. The cops were LEGALLY justified, because there is no legal requirement or training for them to go slow, assess the situation, back off for a time, call in back up, talk, talk, TALK to the suspect. Those are the strategies that are automatically done with whites, which is why Dear (PP shooter) and Dylan Roof were captured unharmed. Almost every viral shooting video has an almost comically short timeline. Why is this?
The culture as a whole judges blacks and whites differently. Mug shots of black suspects on the front page, vs. graduation pics of whites. Blacks called thugs, whites called mentally ill. Black children judged 5 years older than their chrological age, not called children (Tamir Rice). Black and brown people are judged as inherently more dangerous. Their skin is weaponized. Both white and black cops are trained to think this way. And we continue to talk “justified shooting” rather than “reasonable response”.
This is a great point.
The first 10 minutes or so highlighted my problem with BLM. Even the pro BLM advocate seems to concede that the problem isn’t one of racist cops indescriminantly killing black people, which seems from their rhetoric, to be position of BLM, but, that it’s one of society, and police policies that make them more likely to be involved in a situations where they might be shot.
If BLM was about wanting to we reduce crime, and increase opportunities in black neighborhoods so there is no need for so much interaction between them, and cops I think everyone, except for racists who think black are inherently more violent, would be on board.
I wonder how much of this is confirmation bias and simplified media narratives. Whenever I speak with someone from BLM, or listen to them on liberal media, they present nuanced, informed views that don’t simplify complex societal issues into accusations of “bad apples.” Other news networks, especially those that can’t spend more than a few minutes on any individual story, tend to present the stories in more blunt/sensationalist terms.
I also wonder whether the second half of your post is asking BLM to widen its aims beyond what is useful. A crucial part of advocacy work is identifying a specific enough issue that your group can achieve some change. Expecting BLM to speak to every issue that affects black neighborhoods, or even just the issues related to violence, dilutes a specific and potentially productive movement. BLM is a movement that raises awareness of the ways our culture devalues black lives, specifically related to police/vigilante action, media coverage, and inaction on the level of public policy.
“Whenever I speak with someone from BLM, or listen to them on liberal media, they present nuanced, informed views that don’t simplify complex societal issues into accusations of “bad apples.””
I think that’s my perception for the most part as well, but they don’t try to quell that impression to any significant degree either, and I think that’s intentional. The idea that racist cops are killing blacks because they are racists is motivating many of those in the streets.
“I also wonder whether the second half of your post is asking BLM to widen its aims beyond what is useful. A crucial part of advocacy work is identifying a specific enough issue that your group can achieve some change.”
The fact that they are not addressing the issues I point out in the second half is why they appear to be arguing that the problem is racist cops killing black people. If you address that problem without offering an underlying cause, and solution you’re saying cops killing black people is THE problem, which at least implies racist cops are the problem rather than the real problems, problems that most people would agree exist.
I think I see your point more clearly now. Thanks for elaborating. It sounds like you’re saying that if members of BLM more often spoke to the contextual factors which disenfranchise people of color, it would convey to you that their focus on police action isn’t just a scapegoat.
One of the things that stood out for me during this episode was Rondale’s point about being uncomfortable with BLM responding to potentially justified shootings, and Jabari’s point about preferring to err on the side of advocacy.
It’s still sort of shocking to me how casually opponents of BLM seem to present accusations of racism as a deep and profound offense, often to the point that they seem more outraged by BLM’s response than the deaths they respond to. There’s this narrative that protesters need to be very careful, gather all the facts (which is difficult without any sort of oversight or independent investigatory bodies), and only when an officer has legally adjudicated to have acted as a result of racial bias can BLM then protest (but only if the officer hasn’t been fired or incarcerated, because you can’t keep beating up on a guy once he’s down).
It reminds me of an article I read earlier this year that offered advice to christians and atheists regarding transgender bathroom legislation. The christians were asked to offer compassion and acceptance while the atheists were instructed to “stop beating up on christians about their trans bathroom discomfort.” The author’s point was that it wasn’t helping to make people feel attacked, but that point was arguably overshadowed by the fact that trans-individuals are at the greatest danger of any group of being physically attacked, often by religious/conservatives, especially trans-women of color.
I think it’s important to remember that BLM, much like “the court of popular opinion,” doesn’t have socially-backed authority to imprison, execute, or otherwise infringe upon the rights of individuals. Officers involved in incidents protested by BLM are routinely cleared by review boards, remain employed, and to my knowledge, have not been punished unjustly in an effort to appease BLM.