Here We are Again, Huh...?

Terence Crutcher, an unarmed Black American dealing with car trouble, was shot and killed by police officers from the Tulsa PD. The initial report from the officer (Betty Shelby) who fired the fatal shots claimed that he was "uncooperative" and did not hold his hands in the air for full visibility. Well, that's a lie.

And she's not the first to lie about the interaction with a black person shortly before the untimely death of that black person. Even worse, Terence Crutcher wasn't even the only unarmed Black American to be shot and killed by police within a week, and as I'm writing this sentence, it's ONLY FUCKING THURSDAY!!!* Can you believe that we're still in a place where we have to talk about this type of thing? Given all that we've consistently seen, and yet this is still where we are. No change. No progress. Just the same excuses.



Well, I'm tired of this shit. I'm not the only one. I'm not the only person that knows the routine when another instance of an unarmed or otherwise innocent black civilian dying at the hands of police officers who we know will receive no punishment gets reported. And yes, I used the word "innocent" which absolutely fits seeing as no charges had actually been filed more often than not. Walter Scott, Keith Lamont Scott, Tamir Rice, Rekia Boyd, Eric Garner, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Jonathan Ferrell, Sandra Bland, John Crawford, Oscar Grant, Jordan Davis, even Michael Brown and Laquan McDonald were not charged with anything before their lives ended. If "innocent until proven guilty" is to mean anything, then no assumption or posthumous discovery is a valid justification for what happened to these people. That's, at the very least, what this whole thing is about...

I don't really need to mention Colin Kaepernick by name at this point as most people right now recognize him immediately. For the sake of clarity for future generations who hopefully won't even understand what the big deal was, Kaepernick (pictured on the right) wasn't the center of controversy until he began sitting and/or kneeling during the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner." Colin has publicly stated his reasons for not saluting the flag or standing during the playing of the national anthem:

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."1

Pretty simple and straightforward, really. And all things considered, he has a solid point. Much more than many are aware or would like to admit, so the reaction has assuredly been equally level-headed and reasonable...right?

Well...Looks like the point was missed entirely. And that should be expected from Ted Cruz, but every other response is also way off-base. To tell you that Ted Cruz is an idiot with no integrity is no shock, but it would also be besides the point in much the same way that Colin Kaepernick's detractors are missing the mark. The plain and simple truth of things is this: The status quo does not get to dictate to the oppressed why or how they choose to protest. If you think it makes sense to comment on the manner of protest that people choose to take...

It's not your place to say that the tactics are right or wrong. The most you can add is whether or not they'll be effective, and even then, that's not as important as the reason why these people are protesting in the first place. To spend time and energy focusing on the methods of protest is to miss the forest for the trees. I'm cutting through all the bullshit posturing about patriotism pertaining to Colin Kaepernick and other athletes taking a knee or sitting through the national anthem because frankly that's not important. Pushing aside the fact that patriotism is NOT a mandate anyway, the issue that gave rise to the discord that fuels the protest is still not being addressed. How those arguing against Kaepernick and BLM don't see that is almost as hilarious as it is tragic.

You only become the source of your own complaints by ignoring the problem. But then...that's perfectly American, isn't it?

Always easier to point at a problem as opposed to solving it.

It's specifically the national anthem that Kaepernick and others are using as their dais, and that's far more poignant than most readily think. There are several reasons for that, but there're mainly 2 that need unpacking and both rely on sweeping pertinent factors under a rug. For starters, there's the poisonous nature of police culture due to the myths that permeate it.

Here you have a former officer from the NYPD stating publicly that black people are "prone to criminality." Wait, it gets better...

That's "America's mayor" claiming that the greatest danger to black people is other black people while conveniently overlooking the frequency with which every ethnic group victimizes their own. Pertaining to murder specifically, white people kill other white people at a rate of roughly 83-84%. And yet there is no outcry over the sweeping epidemic of "white-on-white crime." It might be because the overwhelming narrative of "black on black crime" couples nicely with the belief that black people are "prone to criminality." There's just one problem that isn't directly being addressed...

This is an undeniably racist position.

To say that one group of people are more naturally prone to committing crimes is to say that those people are naturally uncivilized. Savages, if you will. Now, the textbook definition of racism is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." Saying black people are more inclined to breaking the law fits that description to a tee. Yet many police officers believe this, and as shown by the fact that a former officer is saying that, this mentality has been around for years. Talk about a poisoned well...but that brings me to the other elephant in the room, "The Star-Spangled Banner."

This one is gonna require a history lesson, so hunker down. The song is based on a poem written by Francis Scott Key in 1814 titled "The Defense of Fort M'Henry." Key wrote the poem after witnessing the bombing of Fort McHenry during the Battle of Baltimore in The War of 1812. We, in modern society, are really only most familiar with the first stanza/verse of the song since that's the only portion that is routinely performed. But there are actually 4 in total, and there's a distinctly off-putting bit in the 3rd stanza...

"No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave"

That's a face that says "Sorry not sorry" all the time...

A little context: During the War of 1812, British forces recruited American slaves to their side of the battle by promising them their freedom. Whether or not that promise would've been kept is aside from the point that those fighting were doing so in pursuit of their emancipation. And what does the American national anthem say about these people again...?

"No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave"

That is a definite stance against the slave whose only aim in this battle is to gain freedom. And it's not as though Key was unaware of this seeing as many slave owners were furious about this at the time (no surprise), and by April of 1814, giving freedom to slaves who fought for them was the official position of Britain. The Battle of Baltimore took place in September of that year. So, just to clarify, the American national anthem contains a couplet that vilified black people for *literally* fighting for their freedom. And the only reason most people don't already know this is because of the deliberate choice to ignore that portion of the song.

To continue along this portion of the nation's history, there were black people, freed and slave alike, who fought for America during the War of 1812 as well. I don't think I have to tell you what was gained by their efforts...

This is deliberate misdirection, but you can still thank me for this palette-cleanser.

The point is it took another half a century after that war before slavery ended, and then an absolutely necessary Civil Rights movement another century after that, but here we are in the midst of another battle to combat the lingering presence and effects of systemic racism. And it's pretty hard to deny the fact that such institutional issues exists when the injustices that people of color face are so egregious even court rulings have had to admit that Black Americans have every justifiable right to run away from police officers. Think of it this way: If armed agents of the state immediately viewed you and those associated with you as more likely to be guilty of wrongdoing based solely on your skin color, you probably wouldn't trust or want to interact with them. When you also consider that your freedom and equality has been viewed by those in power as undesirable since day one, a lot of things start to make a troubling amount of sense. What doesn't make sense is the amount of outrage over this...

...and this**...

But not this...

...or does it?

Colin isn't the one that needs to take a knee, America.

*--Compiling and researching takes time. That, and almost every photo wouldn't load properly.
**--No, riots aren't the desired course of action. That's been the whole point.