Last week was the finale of the series American Crime Story: People v. O.J. Simpson. If you have not watched this series, then stop what you’re doing, get your entire life and go pull it up on your “in demand” feature. Not only is it well written and acted by highly competent actors, it is also an excellent reflection on race, class and the criminal justice system in America. The series did a wonderful job of pulling back the veil and uncovering the true depths of the drama that unfolded over twenty years ago. While there were many noteworthy moments of the series, one that continues to resonate in my mind was when O.J. expressed his resistance to hiring Johnny Cochran. In his protestation he declared. “I see what you’re trying to do; trying to make this a racial thing. But I’m not black! I’m O.J.!” As he said that, I thought to myself, “There in lies the problem. He is detached from reality.” Ultimately, it was this “race thing” that led to his acquittal, despite his racial ingratitude.
But last week was not only colored (pun intended) with the conclusion of the O.J. series, it also brought the controversial comments of Bill Clinton as he reacted to Black Lives Matter protestors. In a heated eleven-minute exchange with two protestors he made the following statement, “You are defending the people who killed the lives you say matter…Tell the truth. You are defending the people who caused young people to go out and take guns.” Now, setting aside the issues with his words “the lives you say matter,” Clinton’s statement is highly problematic. Here’s why.
What Bill Clinton fails to realize is that a protestor’s view on his crime bill and opposition to internal community violence are not mutually exclusive. Clinton has created a false dichotomy that suggests to be against a bill that largely and unequally targeted and harms black and brown communities is tantamount to supporting violent actors within those communities. However, to hold Clinton accountable for the laws that sent many black and brown citizens to prison for non-violent offenses, for essentially suffering from addiction, does not mean one supports violent members of society. Communities are harmed internally and externally. It is simply wrong and unfair to assume because one chooses to address those external causes that they are implicitly supporting those internal harms. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that if the Black Lives Matter protestors only chose to focus on internal issues that these critics like Clinton would insist that they focus on those external factors as well. No, the call for black and brown people to always focus on those internal issues is frequently a way to deflect from largely societal and governmental culpability. And quite frankly, I am tired.of.it.
Yes we can talk about drug addiction within our community, but you cannot discuss that without mentioning how the CIA allowed those drugs to be placed in our communities. If there is a drug problem, then the CIA is as culpable as the gang banger you want me to demonize. (For a great film on the CIA and the crack epidemic please watch Kill the Messenger). And you must also acknowledge what John Ehrlichman, a former Nixon aide, admitted about the war on drugs. Specifically he stated
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. (Read full article here)
Those aren’t the words of some inconsequential political player, but rather a voice coming from the Whitehouse. So yes, we can talk about the breakdown in black and brown communities, but let’s also acknowledge that part of the cause stems from governmental policies whose objections was to “disrupt those communities.”
Now you may wonder what Bill Clinton’s comment and O.J. have in common. And it is this; collectively they highlight a complication in the fight for justice. Injustice is a multifaceted, complicated problem. Solving it is equally complicated and messy. At times addressing injustice requires the use of imperfect vessels, and the use of these imperfect vessels runs the risk of opening your cause to unfair demonization. Thus, for the Black Lives Matter protestors speaking out against the unfair drug laws runs the risk of them being seen, as Clinton did, as defending addicts and gangbangers because that is the population affected by the law. In the O.J. trial, for Cochran he wanted to use the trial as an opportunity to highlight nationally the corruption and racism of the LAPD and other police forces. And that is what he was able to do. However, in so doing, he is seen as an opportunist who got O.J. off for a crime he committed. Not to mention that O.J.’s persistent racial denial and ingratitude.
Despite this complication of justice work, I don’t think the solution is to not use imperfect vessels. The truth is that no one is a perfect vessel. Even if your record is spotless, the opposition can find a way to vilify you in order to not disrupt their willful ignorance. If you don’t believe me, just ask Trayvon Martin and Sandra Bland. No, we must continue the fight for justice, even if it’s through an imperfect vessel. If you don’t, then I’m afraid you’ll be waiting forever to fight at all.
–Until Next Time–
Palooke
