.Race and the Oakland Riots

The violent response to the killing of Oscar Grant fans flames of struggle within the black intelligentsia.

The New Year began with a horrifying bang on January 1 when a BART
cop killed Oscar Grant. Handcuffed and lying on his stomach at the
Fruitvale BART Station when he was shot in the back by Officer Johannes
Mehserle, Grant left a four-year-old daughter. Then, in character with
local history, after a January 7 memorial service and protest dedicated
to Grant, a small-scale riot broke out in downtown Oakland. About 150
people were arrested and dozens of local businesses suffered
damage.

As these tragic events move through the legal system, we are sure to
hear more about Grant and those arrested in the disturbance. But they
also highlight a divide within the black intelligentsia. Chip Johnson
of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that he just doesn’t get
the rioters who felt it appropriate “to punish the city and its
citizens for the tragedy.” Johnson, who has singlehandedly made public
safety Oakland’s number one political issue, complained that
“apparently the scores of young black men murdered in Oakland, year
after year — most often by other black men — does not
warrant the same level of outrage as one black man shot by a law
enforcement officer.”

Black intellectual Stanley Crouch went even farther. Writing in the
online magazine The Daily Beast, Crouch, like Johnson, compared
outrage at the killer cop to black-on-black crime. “The central cause
of death among black males is not excessive police action,” he wrote,
but the “national slaughterhouse” of black people “killed by other
black males.” Crouch bases much of his argument on the work of a
controversial Northeastern University researcher, James Alan Fox, whose
study “The Recent Surge in Homicides involving Young Black Males and
Guns” received heavy media coverage. Fox and Crouch advocate more
“crime control” in black communities. Fox’s research, however, has been
roundly criticized by Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt, who
argues that violence by black teenagers is not on the increase.

Whatever the facts, Johnson is certainly right when he writes that
“Oakland folks are dog-tired of street madness,” and “worn out by
violence.” But he and Crouch are wrong to juxtapose the supposed lack
of attention to black-on-black crime with concern over police
brutality. Both are important issues, and a concern for one need not
belie a lack of concern for the other. This has been argued by
Ta-Nehisi Coates, an Atlantic magazine writer who commented
after the riots about the supposed lack of attention to black-on-black
crime. “The fact that people are pissed that a cop shot a man face down
on the pavement, doesn’t mean that they also aren’t pissed about shit
like this. I’m black, and I know I am. Walk and chew gum, people.”

East Bay residents are especially sensitive to police brutality.
Oakland was, after all, the home of the Black Panther Party, the
strongest response to police brutality this nation has ever seen. And
there’s a reason the Panthers began in Oakland. Tahirah Rasheed, an
Oakland college student who protested at the BART board meeting, told
the San Jose Mercury News that she sees the death of
Grant as “the culmination” of decades of poor relations between police
and citizens. The Grant killing reminded her of “seeing her older
brother mistreated by a police officer when she was about six years
old.”

Police enjoy a special status in society. We rely on them to keep
the peace, not break it. Citizens have a right to expect that police
are on our side, and not people from whom we must flee. While traveling
in Mexico a couple of years ago, I was robbed by cops not once but
twice on the outskirts of the Mexico City airport. I will never again
look at a Mexican cop as someone on my side. That is disturbing. Cops
are symbolic of state power. When a cop kills an unarmed man, it is
different than a citizen-upon-citizen shooting. Symbols matter.

Regarding crime, the conduct by those within the black community has
been debated by the black intelligentsia for years. The furor over the
comments of Bill Cosby remains with us. Cosby, you may remember,
lambasted black youth and black parents for their poor social habits.
He trashed poor black moms for buying their kids “$500 sneakers” but
refusing to “spend $250 on Hooked on Phonics.” Michael Dyson, a black
intellectual who teaches at Georgetown and who spoke in Oakland last
April, argues in his book Is Bill Cosby Right? that there is an
ideological divide in the black community, just like the one seen in
reaction to this riot. On one hand is the “Afristocracy,”
upper-middle-class blacks who “rain fire and brimstone upon poor blacks
for their deviance and pathology.” On the other hand is the
“Ghettocracy,” poor blacks who are “desperately unemployed and
underemployed.” Dyson castigates the Afristocracy for its cavalier
attitude toward those stuck in the Ghettocracy.

While it is easy to rail against the orgy of black-on-black crime in
Oakland, solutions are much more difficult to pin down. One storeowner
whose property was damaged in the recent riot was quoted by the
Chronicle as wondering why the rioters did not “channel” their
anger and frustration into something else. But what has society offered
these folks to channel this into? Who the hell listens to the
Ghettocracy?

Disputes such as these have existed for decades. Nearly one hundred
years ago, Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. DuBois went at it tooth and nail in
debates that have a similarity to those of today. The difference this
time may come from having a black president. In that sense, it is the
best of times and the worst of times for the residents of Oakland’s
most violent streets. Will this symbolic change translate into real
change for Oakland’s poor? The most we can do is hope.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

East Bay Express E-edition East Bay Express E-edition
19,045FansLike
14,611FollowersFollow
61,790FollowersFollow
spot_img