Yesterday I dealt with the flashpoint occasion of Dr. Henry Louis Gates’ arrest and spent most of it recounting a situation that happened to me at the beginning of the last school year.
Like Gates I was caught in a narrative I couldn’t get out of. It didn’t matter that I was a faculty member, didn’t matter that I tried to diffuse the situation, didn’t matter that I was leaving anyway. They were going to call campus security on me no matter what. Gates noted that there was a black officer on the scene who was particularly sensitive–they originally handcuffed him in the back, but the black officer convinced them otherwise.
In my case it was the black officers who prevented the situation from escalating as they understood the narrative (“he started raising his voice and making gestures and i felt threatened…”) being deployed against me. I suppose that if I would’ve contacted the news or students, or the black staff and faculty association heads would’ve flown.
But to quote my 4 year old son “that’s not how I roll”.
Dr. Gates’ story is a perfect example of pre- and post-racial politics. Whether it’s Sotomayor, Dr. Gates, the Philly kids who just wanted to swim, or me, these flashpoint examples are examples of non-white “innocents” being treated in a heavy handed manner by hood-wearing (or badge carrying) white racists.
But I noted yesterday that I am less interested in the racial politics angle than in the black politics angle. That is, the central question to me isn’t really whether what happened to Gates or to me would have happened had we not been black–although I asked myself that question as they were trying to jack me. The central question is twofold:
- What would our response have been had Gates been poor and black?
- What would Gates’ response been?
These questions deal with black politics rather than racial politics. With the way that scarce resources that are given/withheld BY blacks FROM blacks based on class, gender, and in some cases sexual preference.
The class dynamics here are particularly stark. Gates is a Harvard Professor, his lawyer (Charles Ogletree) is not only also Harvard Law Professor, but is his friend. As soon as he’s arrested he is able to get his personal secretary to make a call to one of the best civil rights lawyers on the planet. Because he is who he is, he gets instant national (international?) press coverage. And even though he felt he was stuck in a narrative he couldn’t get out of, because of his stature he was able to quickly establish an effective counter-narrative! Check out the introduction of the statement issued by Prof. Ogletree (his lawyer).
How do the sentences establishing his full title, and his whereabouts before the incident work here? For me they work to establish that Gates wasn’t your “regular negro.” (Even though he arguably acted like one–the original police report has been scraped from the web but I believe it, rather than Gates’ statement.) Whereas then-candidate Barack Obama was hesitant to make any type of definitive statement about the Jena 6, last night during his press conference he was quick to label the Cambridge police officer’s action “stupid”.
Now here’s the stark reality.
Working class and poor black men are treated like this every single minute of every single day. But our–and here I mean not just whites but blacks–response is usually muted at best. Because the entire concept of racial profiling is based on class–on the idea that black middle and upper class men are treated as if they are POOR and black. If Gates wasn’t Gates but John John, we either never hear about it in the media, or (if we live in a black neighborhood) we drive by it without even thinking twice. We routinely withhold care–a political resource–from poor and working class blacks, so we give less than a damn when they get jacked. (This is why Obama’s Father’s Day rhetoric plays so well in black communities.)
I referred to Dr. Melissa Harris Lacewell’s piece in The Nation yesterday. Harris-Lacewell noted that Gates was “apolitical”, a term that I also used.
This isn’t actually right.
Gates has long argued that there were two black Americas–one successful and well-to-do and one well….ghetto. And he’s argued clearly both in print (a 1992 article in Forbes) and on film (his black America documentary) that the black poor are poor not because of structural factors but because of their own poor habits. In fact, watching CNN’s first edition of Black In America (the second one aired last night and continues tonight) was like listening to Gates (and indeed, I believe that Soledad O’Brien was one of his students).
What would Gates do if the victim in this case were poor and black? He’d do what most of do–walk on by. And to the extent he even registered the event in his mind, he’d blame it on the victim. His own body of work says as much. From his perch in the ivory tower he’s done more to justify the way that blackness, poverty, and crime have been linked culturally than most black intellectuals.
Which brings me back to Grand Canyon.
So now that Gates’ eyes have suddenly been opened as to the criminal justice system–how the hell can you be a Professor of African American Studies and NOT know??–he plans a documentary on it. When I caught a whiff of this the first thing I thought of was Steve Martin’s character in the movie. When Martin’s character gets shot he realizes that he–through his violent movies–was partially responsible for his plight. So the conclusion is obvious right? If his violent movies in fact LED to violence, it was his responsibility to right that wrong by creating other movies.
Gates’ decision reads like Martin’s decision to me. NOW he wants to deal with structural racism, after he feels he’s been almost literally hit over the head with it.
But here’s the thing. By the end of the movie, Martin’s back to his old ways, realizing that philosophical treaties don’t really make good movies. At the end of the day, Gates is a neoliberal with primary expertise in LITERATURE. While I hold out hope for another outcome, I’m thinking that–just like this incident–far more heat than light will be shed on this subject as the result of Gates’ efforts.
Oh. I realize I didn’t actually answer the question posed above. For those not familiar with the question it’s a line from a Malcolm X speech. The answer for him in the sixties? “Nigger.” But for me in the oughts?
Dr. Spence.
Les, you are so on point & I faintly remember “Grand Canyon,” it was a sleeper.
The notes on class are very important here & that is sad, however this is America.
On a softer note of racial profiling, 2 weeks ago, I was shopping on 5th Ave in NYC when I decided to stop in the Lacoste store for a shirt.
After browsing uninterrupted for a short bit, I spotted a shirt that I wanted, looked for my size & could not find it. Moments later a clerk came & asked if she could help me. I said sure, I need a XX, so she called to get one. Then I asked about another shirt & she called on that to.
As the shirts came, she said in an almost whispered voice, these are not on sale.
I pause, looked at the shirts, then looked at her & said AND? She backed off. I dropped the shirts then walked out pissed.
I know this happens all the time but when it happened to me, I was pissed off. I guess I still am.
Maybe it was my hair that made her think I was broke, maybe it was my dashiki or perhaps it was my cheap Old Navy jeans. I'm just saying.
As the shirts came, she said in an almost whispered voice, these are not on sale.
That's why I only buy my clothes at Nordstrom's. The folks who work there would never say anything like that to a customer.
Trust that I wont be going back. In fact I went around the corner to Bloomingdale's & got great service & walked out with what I wanted.
Hey Doctor Spence,
These were two awesome posts. I'm sorry that you and so many other people of color have to go through this nonsense.
NO need to doubt that the Gates incident it as international news, the BBC is discussing the Gates incident, that pretty much settles it.
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/07/2…
(should be interesting to listen to)
I'm wondering about your characterization of him as well , I guess uppity/talented tenthish mentality would be the way to term it. (The idea that people's lack of opportunities is their own fault part) . I have never read his work, just the African-American Lives series and from that I didn't detect that from him, granted he isn't the Malcolm or even Cornell West type but to each his own.
He has his reasons for not realizing/being outspoken about racial profiling before (it's sad, but it happens). But as afar as I can see, things don't change until they happen to people in power/people in power take interest in it. Until someone who can push for change's family, best friend/neighbor is affected by it (.e.g the Brady bill). At the end of the day, I don't care what makes him look at this issue, or rather I don't care because it stems from a personal experience, but I do care that it has brought some natural discussion about and that his documentary will do more of the same.
just my two cents
He created two documentaries before the Lives work that are worth examining. And I'm not suggesting that he make racial profiling his thing, or that in the past he should've studied the phenomenon more. Again, he's actually a professor of Literature. I'm suggesting something different…that to the degree he stepped out of his expertise to deal with these types of issues he was consistently on the wrong side politically. Which makes me really really reluctant to use him as any type of organizing case.
Nice post. I am curious about is the outrage. Well-meaning whites are falling over themselves being upset, but I can't understand why people are surprised. I read the story and laughed an “Oops, they picked up the wrong nigger” laugh, but I wasn't at all surprised. It kind of reminded me of 9/11, when the talking heads were all surprised that people hated America. At the time, I was saddened at the outcome, but not surprised. It makes me think that anyone surprised at the Gates arrest just hasn't been paying attention.
Dr. Spence,
With all due respect, I have to disagree with you on one point. “Because the entire concept of racial profiling is based on class–on the idea that black middle and upper class men are treated as if they are POOR and black.” This point that you are making here (in my opinion) is not one hundred percent correct. In my experience, “racial profiling” has evolved with time. I believe it is now more correct to call it simply, “profiling”. The reason for this shift is actually because of the social “class” that you refer to in your statement. In todays society, and all the varied dynamics there in, race has gradually become less of an indicator, and thus less important. As a retired police officer it was my personal observation (in the location of my job) that the areas in which crimes were most likely to occur, was of course in the more depressed areas of town. With that said, I believe that you can agree that economic depression knows no race and therefore is not biased nor racist. Anyway, in these areas you will find all races of people just as you will all across the land. I can of course only speak to the area in which I live and worked, but race was simply not a factor in determining who was suspect in any given crime. I suppose the point I am trying to get to is that a persons race is becoming less a factor in these matters. There will always be those instances where a particular officer will be the exception, but it is quickly becoming, not the rule. In todays lawsuit happy society police officers have to be very careful in all that they do, because generally speaking they are usually guilty until proven innocent, and it is a well know fact that even the appearance of a racially motivated action can be a career ender.
One last point. I only worked for two different departments during my career, but in both of those departments it was against department policy to handcuff a suspects hands in front of their body for officer safety reasons. To violate this policy could and usually would result in time off without pay, regardless of the suspect. It is very easy to sit in judgement of police officers. The public in general wants to hold them to an all but impossible standard, always wanting to overlook the fact that they too are human. I would venture to guess that if more citizens were to go to their local police department and request to ride along with an officer for a week or two that they would walk away with a vastly different view of police officers. You know… walk a mile in their shoes.
I seriously doubt that Dr. Gates was placed in handcuffs and arrested because of his race. Oh and no, the police officer isn't necessarily always without fault, nor are they necessarily always right.
Thanks for responding. When I wrote about racial profiling above I writing about it from the standpoint of the black actor/activist. From the person who'd say “What? Like I couldn't possibly live in this neighborhood because I'm black?” Or “Why are you stopping me? Don't you believe a black man could drive a Benz?”
These are both class-inflected. And infected, I'd add.
From the standpoint of the police profiling is a different thing. After 9/11 it likely becomes much more complicated.
Excellent piece, Les. Excellent.
Brilliant.
I have to say that my first reaction to Skip's plight was — I bet he didn't even know he was a black man! And my second was, maybe he should have gotten to know his neighbors better.
But, I am still not ok with this kind of treatment of anyone.
I have had one too many arguments with well meaning friends in the past seven or so months since a young man was shot in the back in Oakland because he mouthed off to a BART cop (read, not even a real police officer). I don't know that young man, but I don't need to know him personally to know that it is not ok to shoot a man in the back who you already have on the ground with his arms behind his back. Despite this, there are too many who would argue that he was “threatening.” As though being black and young and a man is inherently threatening.
So, I think you are 100% right on. I am hoping that we have a better answer for the question posed as the title of this piece. I am hopeful and open every day.
Damn doctor. That was the best analysis of this incident that I've seen anywhere.
I remember Grand Canyon being an absolutely horrid movie about race that I placed among the ranks of Bulworth and that horrible movie made in the 90s where black people were in power and all wore kente.
Gates is not apolitical. I think he was reaching for his Mumia moment, and I think he's having to deal with the real fact of his ascent in society. That when he introduces himself as a distinguished tenured ivy league professor and the social currency that goes along with that, he gives up the right to be a stand-in for Pookie. Race simply isn't that flexible in today's society whether or not it is in Gates' head.
Today I discovered that the arresting officer, appropos your own personal story, is FACULTY and teaches the anti-racial profiling class to police. Has done so for five years. But very much like your story, once fear pulls the trigger, people feel entitled to take it to the ends of their immediate bias. Gates *felt threatened*.
There's all kinds of ways to spin this – that it obscures a bigger picture, that it represents a bigger picture. I see it two ways.
#1. Gates is no hero, and the system provided him no platform to speak as a victim of injustice. There is no injustice here.
#2. The court of public opinion is highly manipulated, and easily spins against justice.
It seems to me that the more people try to make of this, the less justice is possible.