The Blood is on No One's Hand but the Guilty, and He's Dead

I suck.

I have a post on Ferguson that's been sitting in my draft section.  I have yet to post my thoughts about the shootings on those two NYPD police officers and the following marches/voices of support for the police.  Well, no time like the present.
-------------------------------------------------------

In case you missed it, back around late December,

An armed man walked up to two New York Police Department officers sitting inside a patrol car and opened fire Saturday afternoon, striking them both before running into a nearby subway station and committing suicide, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton said.
The shooting took place in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. Both officers were shot in the head and rushed to a hospital, where they later died.

At a news conference Saturday night, Bratton identified the officers as Wenjian Liu, a seven-year veteran of the NYPD, and Raphael Ramos, who joined the force two years ago.

"They were, quite simply, assassinated -- targeted for their uniform," Bratton said. "They were ambushed and murdered."......

The gunman, identified as 28-year-old Ismaaiyl Brinsley, shot himself inside the subway station, Bratton said. A semi-automatic handgun was recovered at the scene.....

Bratton said Brinsley had shot and seriously wounded his ex-girlfriend Saturday morning in Baltimore and made posts from her Instagram account that were "very anti-police."

Authorities didn't get into the specifics of the contents of the posts, but a police source told CBS News that Brinsley posted a photo of a handgun on Instagram a few hours before the shooting. CBS News could not independently verify that the message came from the suspect.

"I'm Putting Wings On Pigs Today," the post said. "They Take 1 Of Ours. Let's Take 2 Of Theirs. #ShootThePolice #RIPErivGardner (sic) #RIPMikeBrown This May Be My Final Post. I'm Putting Pigs In A Blanket"

While I have no problem with the public showing support for the police force, what PISSED ME OFF about that whole incident was the belief that the protests about recent police brutality and shootings somehow fueled the idea of violence toward the police, leading to the deaths of the officers. That if you protested the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, etc., that you're against the police.  Take this guy....

Some of his own words:  "Those that incited violence on the streets under the guise of protest that tried to tear down what New York City police officers did every day. We tried to warn it must not go on, it cannot be tolerated," Lynch said. "That blood on the hands starts at City Hall in the office of the mayor."


Let me make something clear.

You can support the police and still be against police brutality.  You can support the police, know that there are many good police officers, and still protest against the unfair deaths of black men at the hands of some police officers.  The police are NOT above scrutiny.

Now with that being said, this happened:

This was taken around December 13th of last year in New York City in the wake of the police related death of Eric Garner.  The shooting of the officers was around December 20th.  Were the protestors in the video wrong, OF COURSE!

But out of ALL the protests that happened across the country, people took this one group - this one instance, and decided that ALL protests against police brutality (at least the ones in New York) caused the deaths of the two officers.  Ridiculous!   

Now were there instances of police officers being assaulted, yes.  People, especially black people are angry and tired of police brutality happening towards blacks.  But that still doesn't make assaulting police officers OK, and I'm sure most of those protesting against treatment by the police agree.  But the minority cases always take the forefront.

Funny.....police complain that the good cops are grouped with the bad; about how they are portrayed, and they always point out that most cops are good cops.  However, when it comes the protests against police shootings and abuse of power, the few incidents of violence during those protests are constantly used to represent the entirety of the protestors.  The good and bad are grouped together.  Look at how many times people brought up the rioters from Ferguson as an example of the protests over there.  The protestors and rioters were grouped together.   

About the shooter.
To blame the protests for his actions is like blaming violent video games/movies for the actions of school shooters.  Or that a movie/music video/show/video game having a character that think it's OK to kill people means that it tells someone that it's OK to believe that in real life and to act on it.  The shooter was already not right in the head.  He even attacked his ex-girlfriend earlier on, but no one seems to ever mention that..... 

In conclusion, as Jon Stewart said:

You can truly grieve for every officer who's been lost in the line of duty in this country, and still be troubled by cases of police overreach.  Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive.  You can have great regard for law enforcement and still want them to be held to high standards.

 Here are some more great comments from people online about the whole thing:

- This phony and logically baffling indignation is similar to that expressed by the St. Louis County Police Association when it demanded an apology from the NFL when several Rams players entered the field with their hands held high in the iconic Michael Brown gesture of surrender. Or when LeBron James and W.R. Allen wore his “I Can’t Breathe” shirts echoing Eric Garner’s final plea before dying. Such outrage by police unions and politicians implies that there is no problem, which is the erroneous perception that the protestors are trying to change.

- It's like people don't understand that the action of a single person does not represent an entire group. Then again, these are probably the same people who think the 9/11 attacks of an extremist group represents an entire culture and religion. Ignorance feeds ignorance.

- In a Dec. 21, 2014 article about the shooting, the Los Angeles Times referred to the New York City protests as “anti-police marches,” which is grossly inaccurate and illustrates the problem of perception the protestors are battling. The marches are meant to raise awareness of double standards, lack of adequate police candidate screening, and insufficient training that have resulted in unnecessary killings. Police are not under attack, institutionalized racism is. Trying to remove sexually abusive priests is not an attack on Catholicism, nor is removing ineffective teachers an attack on education. Bad apples, bad training, and bad officials who blindly protect them, are the enemy. And any institution worth saving should want to eliminate them, too.

And lastly:

The idiots who killed these people are responsible for their deaths!  Can we say that all white people are responsible for over 200 years of slavery, followed by generations of jim crow laws, and now institutional racism?  absolutely not.  some white people are hateful racists, and some are not.  some people are idiots and take the law into their own hands , and others, such as myself,  respect and obey the law.  place the blame where it belongs-on the heads of the idiot criminals who killed these officers!

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (six-time NBA champion and league Most Valuable Player; also an author, filmmaker and education ambassador) also had thoughts to share of his own.  From his article, The Police Aren’t Under Attack. Institutionalized Racism Is:

The recent brutal murder of two Brooklyn police officers, Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, is a national tragedy that should inspire nationwide mourning. Both my grandfather and father were police officers, so I appreciate what a difficult and dangerous profession law enforcement is. We need to value and celebrate the many officers dedicated to protecting the public and nourishing our justice system. It’s a job most of us don’t have the courage to do.

At the same time, however, we need to understand that their deaths are in no way related to the massive protests against systemic abuses of the justice system as symbolized by the recent deaths—also national tragedies—of Eric Garner, Akai Gurley, and Michael Brown. Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the suicidal killer, wasn’t an impassioned activist expressing political frustration, he was a troubled man who had shot his girlfriend earlier that same day.

How Darren Wilson Demonized Michael Brown - from the Root

Some excepts I wanted to share.....Read the whole thing at the source.  It's pretty good.

Stereotypes are dangerous. And for Michael Brown, they proved to be deadly.

Of all that we heard Monday night about the St. Louis County grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson, Mo., Police Officer Darren Wilson for shooting and killing Brown, what kept me awake for hours after the announcement was made was Wilson’s testimony.

Testimony in which Wilson said that Brown “had the most intense aggressive face. The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that’s how angry he looked.”

It was rife with imagery that dates back hundreds of years as it relates to how white men often perceive black men. His use of vivid language, describing Brown like “Hulk Hogan” while describing himself, in comparison, like a small child holding on for dear life, is troubling. This is the power and danger of racial “stereotypes.”

When we believe that another human being is in fact, not human, we remove ourselves from how we treat, and entreat, them. We justify prejudices. We justify disrespect. We justify dehumanization in ways that can, and often does, lead to tragedy.

.................................

The anger and violence that erupted last night in Ferguson is so much bigger than Brown’s tragic death though. It’s not really about whether Wilson was “justified” in taking a life. Or whether Brown robbed a grocery store for cigars, “charged” Wilson or caused the officer to fear for his life. It’s about a community that feels disenfranchised—and assaulted by the very officers sworn to protect them.

This American tragedy is about a longstanding history of “fear” between white law-enforcement officers and young black men (unarmed, in uniform, in suits or driving while black). And until we address that issue, we will continue to see more teens like Trayvon Martin stalked and gunned down by unarmed vigilantes like George Zimmerman. And we will continue to see the use of deadly force to “subdue” black male suspects who have not been given their fundamental rights of due process.

Ferguson Post Part 1

Well, by now, we all know that Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted for killing unarmed teenager, Michael Brown.  The jury believed that the officer acted within the rules of police conduct and that he was right to feel threatened by Brown.  According to prosecutor Bob McCulloch, the jury reached their decision based on the evidence and testimony from Wilson and black witnesses. 

I don’t know about you, but there’s something fishy going on here.  But I'll save that for the next post.  

Let me take a moment to say this. 

I’m sick of those who are on the side of Wilson, painting those who think he was wrong to shoot Brown as only going by emotion; constantly sprouting that blacks who are against Wilson believe that because Michael was black, he's innocent, and that white cops are always in the wrong!  Or those who believe that racism is only about whether someone is gunned down BECAUSE their black.  Or constantly complaining about Jesse Jackson this, Obama that, the mainstream/liberal media also!  These people miss the point entirely.

Could it be that people are against Wilson because what he did was wrong, and that the evidence and witness testimonies leave much to be desired, even straight up questionable (I'll get to that later).  Many white people say that the right decision was made and it was based on evidence, yet it was mostly white people who cried fowl when O. J. Simpson was set free.  The jury found him innocent based on evidence too....   

Racism isn't only about something being done to someone BECAUSE they're black.  It involves the views, feelings, and fear someone has, and stereotypes people hold, of another person that fuels their actions towards them.  Darren didn't kill Brown solely because he was black, but Brown being black influenced Darren to take actions he wouldn't necessarily have taken had Michael been white or even a hefty white woman.  The point is, many cops out right FEAR black people, especially black men, and that fear causes them to be skittish and jumpy.  And you can't be a cop and feel skittish. 

I heard this on the Steve Harvey Morning Show.  Blacks are used to being "the only one" in groups, whether it be in a class or work environment.  But whites, truth be told, aren't used to that.  Add being sent to areas where there are issues with crime and you got some scared white cops.

Another thing, the protesters in Ferguson being seen as ALL violent really upsets me.  I'm not excusing the rioters, but there were rioters and there were protesters.  Apparently, there was indeed peaceful protests in front of the police station, but of course no one mentions that.  And I got to tell you...while watching the live feed on MSNBC, at times it seems as if the cops were overzealous in controlling the citizens.  For example, threatening to arrest people if they didn't get out of the street and onto the sidewalk....really?  Not to mention at one point sending in TRUCKS that shot out teargas/smoke bombs/whichever it was.  The location where that took place, if I recall correctly, I didn't see any outright rioting.  To make it worse, people claim that tear gas was being flown into people's yards.

Again, I'm not excusing the rioters.  I know that bricks were thrown, a couple of cars set on fire, businesses vandalized, etc.  I'm just saying to not combine the rioters and protesters into one group.  And with the rioters being mostly black, people (especially whites) like to base the entire group on the actions of some.   

Up next, my thoughts on the shooting itself.

A MUST READ if you're SICK of the lack of diversity in comic book movies!

Here is an EXCELLENT piece I first read on Oh No They Didn't. 

Original source here: On Marvel, Mandarin, and Marginalization by Marrisa Lee - from Racebending.com:

At ComicCon 2012, Marvel Studios announced that Sir Ben Kingsley will be playing a version of The Mandarin, Tony Stark’s traditional yellow peril arch-nemesis, in Iron Man 3. The announcement was a sudden about-turn from previous statements the Iron Man directors have made about the Fu Manchu-inspired villain.....

Kingsley’s casting has made some waves; he is a British actor of partial South Asian descent while the Mandarin was originally of Chinese descent in the comics. It’s complicated by the fact that the Chinese government is virtually co-financing and co-producing Iron 3 through DMG film group; China likely had a say in the depiction of The Mandarin in Iron Man 3. [A stamp of approval from the Chinese government doesn't mean much given Asian Americans who live in the United States as a minority group are arguably more strongly affected by sinophobia and stereotypes than the people of China or the Chinese government. (eg. Han Chinese people living in China have access to unlimited representation of themselves in their domestic entertainment industries; Asian Americans do not.)]

Does the casting of Kingsley serve to perpetuate the stereotype that all Asian ethnic groups are interchangeable? Or does it simply cement Marvel Studios’ decision to shift the stereotypical bad guys of the comics from “yellow peril” to “Middle Eastern/South Asian terrorism”? (The first Iron Man film had the Ten Rings bad guy Raza, played by South Asian American actor Faran Tahir.) Rather than debating among ourselves about which Asian American or Asian actor should have the sad privilege to continue the legacy of the reviled Fu Manchu-esque Mandarin, or hand wringing about how Asian Americans don’t have much say in how to reinvent or salvage unforgivable stereotypes that have caused great harm to our communities, there are more pertinent questions we need to lob at Marvel. 

Questions like: How did we end up with The Mandarin in a Marvel Studios movie before any Asian American lead heroes?

Or even just: Why isn’t Marvel really utilizing it’s pantheon of women heroes or characters of color?

The Trayvon Martin Tragedy and the Media's Handling of News Involving Black Victims of Crime

There has been alot of talk about the Trayvon Martin tragedy, and I have my own views, which I will get to in a moment.  But first I want to discuss the media's handling of the case.

It was around late-March I think when the nation was made aware of the incident (around second to the last week in this month). But here's the thing....

I first read about the case when reading this article.  Check out the date of the article....it was March 7, 2012.  The actual incident took place February 26th!

Now think about how long it took the mainstream media to even mention the case, much less broadcast it nationwide.  In fact, you could consider it a miracle that this case even made it that far into public consciousness.

I see it time and time again...if a victim of an attack, murder, or disappearance is not a beautiful white woman or a adorable pretty white girl, then most likely the media won't pay any attention and report on the crime nationwide.  Or drop the story all together for one missing white woman like CNN did in 2009.  Then there's good ole Nancy Grace.  All the disappearances/attacks/murders she has reported have been of white women and girls. Excerpt from the article How the Media Treat Murder:

And We're Supposed to Be in a "Post-Racial" Time....

For those who say that racism or racist tendencies is no longer a big issue, or that we're "post-racial", check this out and get back at me afterwards....

From the The Huffington Post:

The unexpected emergence of Jeremy Lin from the depths of the New York Knicks' bench has been a dream for headline writers and just about everyone who loves puns. The "Linsanity" has spawned some Lincredible wordplay as well as some really unLinteresting phrases.
And, now, we may have found our most offensive headline from a mainstream media outlet.
Several hours after the Knicks' Lin-spired winning streak was snapped by the New Orleans Hornets, ESPN ran the headline "Chink In The Armor" to accompany the game story on mobile devices. ESPN's choice of words was extremely insensitive and offensive considering Lin's Asian-American heritage. According to Brian Floyd at SB Nation, the headline appeared on the Scorecenter app. The offensive headline was quickly noticed, screen grabs, Twit pics and Instagrams were shared and it began circulating widely on Twitter.

The use of the word "chink" is especially galling as Lin has revealed that this racial slur was used to taunt him during his college playing career at Harvard. After a brief run, the headline was changed to "All Good Things.."

...........................

We're a Culture, Not a Costume

A couple of weeks ago, I was on tumblr scanning through my dashboard, when I came across this:

This picture had me thinking, and I preceded to make this comment:

"Think about it.  You can say the same thing about dressing up as Native Americans, Eskimos, maybe even Greecians and Egyptians…."

Think about it.  Can you imagine how insulting it is for Native Americans, African Americans/blacks, and people of Japanese, Middle East, and other ethnic descent seeing their culture dressed up as a costume?  I'll never forget it.  During college - at around Halloween, I was with some friends at IHop.  While we were waiting to be seated, I saw this white guy dressed in a stereotypical Native American costume.  All I could think was "Wow...."  This gif. pretty much sums up my "internal" reaction at the time lol:

I think alot of the discomfort surrounding these costumes comes from stories of fraternities and sororities having parties where they dressed up in blackface or steotypical garb protraying other ethnicities.

However, there's something I can't help thinking about.  What about those who dress up as Vikings, or in traditional Irish or Swedish costume?  Heck what about samurai and ninjas (then again, you can always say that you're supposed to be an anime character), flapper girls, or dressing up in Victorian and medival costumes?  

I'll leave you with this conversation I read from ONTD (Oh No They Didn't) and more pictures from the campaign.  I wish I was able to tab forward and back with this.  Hopefully the letter ordering make sense:

--------------------

A - like, black face is off limits and AWFUL. Absolutely, I think you'd have to be a fucking moron to think that's acceptable. But that's because of the historical implications of how it was used to de-masculinize blacks through minstrel shows in the 1800s and 1900s, and then later perpetuated through different media-related avenues (archetypes still seen in pop culture today).

but like.... Geishas? Really? I can't dress up in a historically accurate costume from another culture just because my ethnic background doesn't match it? I took a history class in college on the history of the Japanese Tea Ceremony and my professor (a white woman) dressed up in a traditional kimono and performed an entire authentic Tea ceremony for us.... is she being racist?

A black guy at my college (actually still a good friend of mine) dressed up Freshman year as a "WASP" and wore really pale make-up to make himself look white, used blonde hair color spray, and wore khakis, boat shoes, a bright pink Lacoste polo shirt, and a bright yellow sweater wrapped around his shoulders. Would that fall into the racist category?

B responding to A - someone posted what Gawker said about it which was along the lines of, if your costume is 'i'm being (this race) LOL' it's racist. In the example of your teacher, she was following tradition of Japanese culture, and respecting, rather than being like 'i'm a geisha girl hahahahahaha'. When it comes to your friend...it's just in poor taste imo. You can't be racist against white people because there's no history or institutionalized discrimination against white people. My opinion is, if you can't properly portray a person without "changing" your skin, it's not a good costume.

C to B - You can't be racist against white people because there's no history or institutionalized discrimination against white people.

There sort of is, a bit. Not all white people, but certain groups have been/continue to be discriminated against.
E.g.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Polonism

D to A - Geishas are one of the handful of stereotypes about Japanese culture - hell, even Asian culture to some people - so it really doesn't fucking matter how much background knowledge you know about the tea ceremony. It's reproducing the stereotype. Why don't you find some outfit a regular Japanese girl is wearing these days and say, "Hey, I'm dressed like a Japanese girl!"

Other cultures are defined in general to how different and exotic they are in relation to Western culture. It doesn't matter how lighthearted the intent it, dressing up as a stereotype just reinforces this idea.

Did you black friend reproduce stereotypes that contribute to the dehumanization of white people? No? Irrelevant example then.

E to A - It doesn't matter if you don't find it offensive.. the fact is apparently a lot of Japanese people DO. End of story.

A to E - ...but many Japanese DON'T find it offensive. Many Catholics find dressing up as a pregnant nun offensive, but it's still generally OK. If someone were to dress up as a "fat American" I'm sure there be plenty of offended people, but does that make it off-limits?

so if more than one person finds a costume "offensive", it's now off limits? Is it really a black and white issue, or is there a grey area?

F to A directly above - if someone wanted to dress up as a fat American in the US it's not like it would take a lot of work or offend a lot of people

there is a huge fucking difference between dressing up as a historically oppressed minority (neither Catholics nor the overweight, by the way) and well, not....

--------------------

Further reading:
We're a Culture, Not a Costume - ONTD
We're a Culture, Not a Costume - CNN
Stop Racist Halloween Costumes - The Root
Pretty much just do a simple search on Google ;)



Sidenote:  Apparently in the very first picture above, the girl painted brown pretending to get bitten from a vampire was apparently supposed to be Lil' Wayne.

My Thoughts on the Biracial Spider-Man Controversy

This post was done back on August 6th.

Last night and into the a.m. hours, I was commenting up a storm over at Yahoo, the article being about the new biracial Spider-Man.  Some of the things I learned:
1) Folk can't read.

Direct quote:
Over in the comic book world, the change to the Spider-Man character has been rocking the Web. Meet Miles Morales, the half-black, half-Latino teenager who takes over when (spoiler alert!) Peter Parker is killed.  Before anyone gets too upset, keep in mind that, first, the September relaunch of "Ultimate Spider-Man" is an alternate universe from the Marvel comic book series in which the original Peter Parker is alive and well.
Did you read that?  The comic takes place in an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.  So Peter Parker is STILL ALIVE in the main storyline.  But apparently, that hasn't sunk in for many of the posters.  All they see is that the new Spider-Man isn't white.

2)People (mostly white people) don't understand that black superheroes are seen as not as profitable as white superheroes, nor do they have as much of a following.  Nor are they as marketed to the public.

3)People jump to the conclusion that it's a P.C. thing rather than it simply being a new superhero that just happens to be mixed (over there people refer to him as black), with dramatizations of PC ruining everything - as if by making Spider-Man not white, the franchise is ruined.

4)People (mainly white people again) don't understand that changing Spider-Man's race in an alternative storyline is COMPLETELY different than changing the race of an ethnic character to a white character in a historical documentary or a single universe story or show.  Anyway, with blacks and others that aren't white still making up a small percentage in comics (and the entertainment industry in general), no one will be keen on whites taking the few opportunities that minorities have.

Another thing.  A common comment that I read was that there's "only one" Spider-Man, and he's Peter Parker.  What I wonder about is if the new Spider-Man was white, would there be as much of a reaction.  Is the issue the fact that the new guy isn't Peter Parker, or is it that he isn't white?

One thing I have to say is that folk can be dramatic.  I've seen comments jumping to complaints about the President, whites being replaced, etc., etc.  Too many people making a big deal out of nothing if you ask me.

As for changing the race of Spider-Man, since it's an alternative storyline and because superheroes are replaced all the time....I say GO FOR IT!  It's pretty cool that they went for a different race :)

Here is an EXCELLENT article about the whole thing from the blog The Root.

I give you:
New Spider-Man:  Not the Obama of Comics