Wednesday, May 27, 2020

I Can't Breathe

"I can't breathe."

There are people out there these days who are protesting rules that require wearing masks during this pandemic. They think the law is pressing itself into their lives, restricting their freedom. Some complain that it's hard to breathe in those things.

The force of law, restricting their breath.

"I can't breathe."

Eric Garner was put in a choke hold after being detained by police for selling loose cigarettes. We know how it ended: Eric Garner died and the police officer walked free.

The force of the law, restricting his breath.

A year later, in Tulsa, Eric Harris was fleeing the police. He died when a volunteer reserve deputy shot him after he'd already been tackled. It was apparently a mistake: the volunteer meant to pull out his taser but instead pulled out his gun. As Harris was dying, he gasped out, "I'm losing my breath." The deputy responded, "F**k your breath." Perhaps they were the last words he heard before he died.

The force of the law, restricting his breath.

The other day a police officer knelt on the throat of George Floyd, who was suspected of forgery and resisted when the officers tried to arrest him. He gasped for breath, gasped out the words, "I can't breathe." Onlookers became involved, afraid for Floyd's life, asking the officer to relent. The police officer did not relent. Floyd was picked up by an ambulance but he died.

The force of the law, restricting his breath.

Stopping it. Ending it.

An utterly predictable ending in this most recent case. I saw the size of the officer who had his knee on George Floyd's throat. I know that if someone that size had their knee on my throat for thirty seconds or less, I'd almost certainly die. George Floyd looked bigger and stronger than me, so I'd give it a little longer. Still, this was a murderous form of restraint. A deadly form of restraint. Certainly not the only thing the officer could have possibly done under the circumstances with an unarmed man being arrested for a nonviolent crime.

Three black men who couldn't breathe. Three black men who lost their lives. And they are only a few among many.

Most police officers have not ended someone's life by cutting off their air supply, certainly not by kneeling on the suspect's throat. We need to point that out. But it isn't enough to point this out. We also need to ask how many, under identical circumstances, would do the same.

I hope the answer is not many. I think the police officers I know would be critical of what this officer did. We need to point that out. But pointing that out is not enough. Because we also need to ask how many police officers will circle the wagons and defend those in their ranks who cut off someone's breath.

I hope the answer is that far fewer will do so this time than has happened in the past. And if this is right, we need to point that out. But again, pointing that out is not enough. We need to ask other questions, broader questions:

How many in our society will look at what happened and say, "He shouldn't have resisted when the cops came to arrest him. It's his own fault." As if the death penalty is the right punishment--imposed without judge or jury, there on the scene, on the street, caught between a tire and the weight of a man's body concentrated through the knee and applied to the throat. As if that is what resisting arrest deserves.

How many will say, "The man was big and dangerous, and when he resisted they had to subdue him. They had no choice." As if, in a confrontation between an unarmed man outnumbered by armed police trained in various methods of restraint, there was no other possible choice but to kneel on his throat and keep kneeling on it even after he started gasping, even after it was clear that he was struggling to breathe, to live, to live one more moment if not another day. "No alternative. Gotta do it. Big black guy. Dangerous. Gotta put him down like a mad dog." How many say such things? And of those who don't say it, how many think it?

How many in our society, even if they do not think such things, are hesitant to speak against blatant inhumanity, homicidal inhumanity, for fear of alienating those in their circle of friends and family who do think such things?

This is not just about a single person committing a single homicidal act. That police officer who killed George Floyd is clearly responsible for his actions, but the rest of us are responsible for how we respond to those actions. The rest of us are responsible for shaping and reshaping our shared culture and society.

Do we shape it in ways that minimize the gravity of such crimes? Do we shape it in ways that help to form the hot thin soup out of which such crimes evolve?

Do we shape it in ways that result in Black lives being treated as less precious than white lives? Do we shape it in ways that, while virtuously condemning overt in-your-face racism, perpetuate a quiet refusal to consider how implicit biases and unconscious prejudices create a more dangerous world for our Black neighbors?

If so, then our voices are there, helping to shape the words of the officer who said "F**k your breath" to a dying man.

Or are we, instead, gagging along with Eric Garner, Eric Harris, and George Floyd? Are we encouraging the empathy that is required to see the humanity, the image of God, the face of God, in strangers who are dying on the street? Do we feel the everyday racism that our Black neighbors endure as a weight on our own shoulders, even if we aren't ourselves Black and even if we cannot fully inhabit or understand it? Do we endeavor to do so with enough persistence and compassion to at least try to envision what it is like to be Black in America and to see white police officers ending the lives of unarmed Black men only to be acquitted time and time again, and to see white vigilantes gunning down Black joggers and not be charged until there is a public outcry?

If so, then how can we not find ourselves vicariously gasping and crying out, "I can't breathe"?

Since I started by talking about face masks, let me return to that now--because I think there some lessons there.

Except in rare cases, a cloth face mask does very little to restrict breathing. People can wear it for hours and suffer no ill effects except for mild discomfort, fogged eyeglasses, and some chafing. These masks help keep asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 from unwittingly spreading it to others, by trapping the respiratory droplets that spread the disease before they can splash outward into the grocery store or the pharmacy. Any law or policy requiring you to wear such a mask is not intended for your safety. It is intended for the safety of those around you. But the policy only works if everyone does their part.

There are two lessons to draw from this. The first is this. Except in rare cases where medical conditions make mask-wearing harmful, those who complain that they can't breathe when they wear a mask are operating from a position of privilege. They are operating from a space of unfettered breathing, from a social space in which they are used to filling their lungs and breathing out across their world without a care. The restriction is nothing compared to the knee at George Floyd's throat. So if you think the mask is the law demanding too much, then so is the knee. If the mask calls for protests and rallies and hours of your time fighting in the name of human breath free of legal tyranny, than all the more so should the knee demand the same. Perhaps something even more dramatic, more sustained, than quietly taking a knee during the National Anthem at a football game.

And here is the second lesson: the mask requirement is about collective responsibility. It is a small thing, but if all of us collectively do it the outcome could be dramatic: people alive who would otherwise be dead; small businesses able to stay afloat which would die if another surge in the pandemic created the need for more sheltering in place. All of us do this little thing, and the burden of the pandemic will be eased from the shoulders of the minority who fall into the highest risk categories. We all do our little part, a tiny inconvenience, and people live who otherwise would have died--like my mother who is in her 80s, or my mother-in-law who is in her 70s and has diabetes.

This is about collective action: everyone seeing themselves as part of the solution rather than treating it as someone else's problem. That is what the masks represent. And that is what is required to change our society enough that our Black neighbors can breathe easier.

The problem of racism is in part a problem of overt racist people acting out their hate in the world. If and when police officers are identified as such overt racists, they should be fired. And when their acts rise to the level of crimes, they should be punished.

But the problem of racism is also a problem of hidden systemic forces and widespread patterns of thinking and acting that are most unconscious and, individually, probably not very harmful. Let's call this the problem of systemic and implicit racism. With respect to this problem, it is a mistake to single out the police as some special locus of systemic and implicit racism. That's just a trick some people play--people who aren't police officers, often white liberals--to avoid responsibility. The problem of systemic and implicit racism is everywhere, including in the system of higher education of which I am a part.

What we need is collective action and collective responsibility. What we need is a willingness to take action from our place of privilege, despite the chafing and the fogging of our glasses, so that someone lives who otherwise would have died.

In the case of systemic and implicit racism, the steps are less obvious and more complicated than simply putting on a mask before stepping into Walmart. It will be harder work. And just as there are those who refuse to wear a mask, there are those who refuse to do this harder work. But hopefully enough of us hear the anguished cry, "I can't breathe," deep in our bones. Deep enough so it aches. Deep enough so it stirs us to act.

The cynic will say, "I'm not holding my breath." But I am not a cynic. I am a person of faith, and I believe that every breath is a gift. As long we can breathe, we have the power to carry into our world the very breath of God. Let us use it well.

5 comments:

  1. How do you handle the arguments of black conservatives like W Williams, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, C Owens, etc. Or the scientific criticisms of the IAT Test. Consider this:scenario 1: white man refuses to give car ride to white man because he fears covid spread. Scenario 2: Same white man refuses next day for same reason, but he refuses to give ride to black man. Immediately, your mind jumps to racist interpretations.

    Moral Luck: But it's not just race. The tendency to not recognize the ways in which individuals, not groups, are lucky or unlucky is a strange form of collectivist thinking.

    I don't understand how attributing collective guilt for any advantages one may have improves anything?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Are there specific arguments/claims made by Sowell, etc., that you believe have direct bearing on thinking in the post above? If so, what are those arguments/claims and what part of my thinking above do they challenge--and how? Be specific.

      2. I'm not sure what bearing your comment on luck has to do with the my thinking above or the George Floyd case. Of course individuals get lucky (or unlucky), and that bears on the course of their lives. That fact is entirely consistent with thinking that there are systemic patterns of privilege and marginalization, patterns which entail that some people need less good luck in order to succeed and that others are more likely to be smacked down hard by bad luck (or will suffer misfortunes even absent bad luck, because the misfortunes in questions are a predictable outcome of systemic forces).

      3. It's not about collective guilt but about collective responsibility. That is, the chief aim is not to blame people but to highlight how we are going to solve the problem--by collectively taking responsibility for making change. Some problems are collective/systemic and so can only be solved by collective action, by people taking responsibility in a coordinated way. Consider the following two cases of hostile environment sexual harassment:

      Case 1: Joe makes life miserable for Mary at work by incessantly sexualizing her: coming on to her, reducing her to a sex object, telling dirty jokes that feature her, etc. He does this in defiance of company policy and seems immune to correction efforts. Joe is individually guilty for creating a hostile work environment for Mary. The solution is to fire Joe.

      Case 2: Joe tells a dirty joke once, which is not enough to create a hostile work environment for Mary. Bill tells a dirty joke once, which is also not enough. One time, when Mary comes in to work, Marty stares at her chest, etc., etc. Thus cumulative effect of all this little things distributed among a dozen co-workers is equivalent in severity to what Joe does in scenario 1, and so creates a hostile work environment. But no single individual is guilty of hostile environment sexual harassment, since nothing that any one person has done is enough by itself to create such an environment. In such a case, firing everyone in the office is not the solution. The problem is the cumulative effect of many actions that on their own would not generate a serious problem, and so the responsibility for changing it has to be collective. Perhaps the collective change can be achieved through altering something at the organizational level: maybe there is no policy or training on sexual harassment and such a thing could be implemented.

      Note that these case are intended to offer a simple framework for understanding the difference between problems that incur individual culpability and problems that call for collective responsibility. It is NOT intended to be an analogy to any specific event relating to policing and race.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for the reply. Here is Larry Elder (three two minute videos): https://twitter.com/larryelder?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    My main criticism is this: people jump to racist interpretations when there are so many other factors to consider. Just because there is inequality, say, between Irish and Hungarian Immigrant incomes, does not mean it is due to racism. Coleman Hughes, a black conservative, has a deeper analysis here: https://quillette.com/2018/07/19/black-american-culture-and-the-racial-wealth-gap/

    Why do some black groups perform so much better than other black groups? Why do Asians do so well? Why do black boys do worse than white boys at the same income but black girls do better than white girls at the same income? What causes the inequalities within the same immigrant groups? Are there any recent Democratic Policies that contribute to the problem of black on black crime? These are some of the questions black conservatives like Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, W Williams, C Hughes, and others speak about and are willing to debate.

    This type of debate and analysis is lacking, even at most universities.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that every breath is valuable. One problem is to fight racism, some people are arguing I must support a movement and party that claims to represent all black people. The solution to racism is not genuflecting to political movements.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tony Timpa couldn’t breathe either, Eric.

    ReplyDelete