Politics & Perspective
How Far Do We Draw the Line?
Our Inherent Contradictions & Deliberate Choices
An indelible and historic moral line was emphatically drawn by our consciences when videos of Minneapolis’ George Floyd’s senseless murder on 25 May 2020 under the ruthless pressed knee of Officer Derek Chauvin and his team of overly-restraining and insensitive police officers went viral.
It is possible, because the COVID-19 pandemic which forced us to shelter-in-place at home and many of us with sudden joblessness became preoccupied with our own basic survival and set aside our usual distractions from the office, from socializing, and from consumerism, that we were primed with our emotions and our senses, contemplating our vulnerable mortality brought on by such invisible dangers, that when suddenly confronted, we were jolted awake by yet another perceived and unexpected existential threat.
The heart-wrenching video accounts of the incredibly blatant malicious murder of George Floyd from a gang of public servants, completely bursted our naïveté regarding our previously held belief in the incorruptible unbroken system of our police as the eternal ‘good guys’. The unconscionable silence of those police officers against the ever escalating bystanders’ pleas on behalf of George Floyd in those very long moments in his lifeless body felt like a clip from a faraway Third World or undemocratic country.
So realizing its vicinity to all of us, those evidential videos thrusted to the forefront of our now more simplified lives, without work or pay, without mobility, that some underlying racial, socioeconomic, and political cancer has in fact been spreading more gravely than we realized unbeknownst to some of us.
2020 is not even the original year nor is George Floyd the original victim for the very same protest requests, the same movement, and the same hails to ‘defund police’, as those were all already previously pleaded also in 2014, after Michael Brown’s questionable death by White cops in Ferguson, Missouri, and since; the countless other wrongful Black deaths at the hands of unqualifiable police that have been piling up plainly in sight but somehow neglected as compared to the massive media attention this year has been bringing but perhaps because previously it was during times of business as usual.
This year, it has definitely not been business as usual.
The virus pandemic forcibly raised questions about the very reality of our shortened dreams, of sudden erasure of our family and friends — buried birthdays, truncated short-term and long-term personal and professional plans, and indefinite uncertainty about our next meals, our next paycheck, and even our country’s next leadership and fate.
We witnessed during the viral pandemic multiple previously held lines crossed — no guaranteed meals, no guaranteed jobs, no paycheck insurance, no COVID-19 testing, no guaranteed hospital beds, no guaranteed ventilators, no federal coordination, no unified national pandemic response, no respect for science, no presidential leadership, no police restraint on peaceful protestors, etc.
Therefore, it was encouraging and hopeful to observe active humanity, despite it all, as part of the domino effect in the aftermath of George Floyd’s unjust murder and the continual rise of attention generated for racial inequality, police brutality, and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement.
Many wanted to prove they have been moved by George Floyd’s death and drew their lines in empathy with Blacks, in solidarity for a better America, and in unprecedented extraordinary ways.
A snapshot of some are listed here:
Individuals in influential corporate positions help their companies change tact
- Reddit’s co-founder Alexis Ohanian voluntarily steps down, lobbying to be replaced by a Black candidate;
- Harper’s Bazaar’s editor, Glenda Bailey, voluntarily stepped down and has been recently replaced by a Black editor, Samira Nasr, for the first time in 153 years of the magazine’s history;
Corporations and major sports associations directly change their tact
- NFL publicly apologies to Black players (vindicating San Francisco 49er’s Colin Kaepernick’s decision to take a knee during the anthem in the 2016 game);
- NBA also publicly supports BLM;
- Nascar bans the use of Confederate flags;
Popular media networks voluntarily follow suit
- HBO Max removes Gone with the Wind, and Disney+ adds cultural sensitivity warnings on an old classic;
- Netflix and BBC remove tasteless comedies that are culturally insensitive;
High-profile celebrities enlightened or trying to be more vocal and political
- New Orleans Saints QB Drew Brees finally realizes his ignorance and apologizes;
- Michael Jordan announces his brand will donate USD100 million over the next decade to organizations fighting racial injustice;
- Jay-Z, Alicia Keys, and others, together sign a letter addressing Georgian officials, demanding justice for Ahmaud Arbery & Jay-Z takes out ads in a newspaper dedicated to the death of George Floyd;
- Beyoncé sends a letter to the Kentucky attorney general demanding justice for Breonna Taylor;
- Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, finally speaks out;
Other image-conscious high-profile personalities induce unwanted attention
- Bon Appétit’s Editor-in-Chief, Adam Rapoport, voluntarily steps down from his embarrassing past racially insensitive photos;
- Vogue’s Anna Wintour doesn’t deny her White privilege nor the racially suffocating work environment and will not be stepping down;
- Jessica Mulroney is dropped by her sponsoring network from a Twitter scandal with a Black Instagram Influencer;
- Mark Wahlberg’s contributing Twitter remarks are perceived insincere and rejected in light of his racist past;
- Both SNL and The Tonight Show’s host Jimmy Fallon and Late-Night Talk Show’s host Jimmy Kimmel are criticized for insensitive comedy from their far past and both apologize.
And more; our legislative branch has finally stirred: Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) successfully led a defense policy bill amendment in renaming all the U.S. military bases (all located in the South) which are named after Confederate figures; the Democratic House proposed sweeping reforms in the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 even though it is under debate and currently battling with the opposing Republican-led Senate bill.
And more; ordinary peaceful protestors beyond taking to the streets have also already taken upon themselves to dismantle statues of:
- controversial figures:
9 June 2020 razed Columbus statue in Richmond, Virginia in Byrd Park;
10 June, 2020 beheaded Columbus statue in Boston’s Waterfront Park;
And furthermore; the NYC’s American Museum of Natural History has offered to tear down President Theodore Roosevelt’s statue also backed by NYC’s Mayor DeBlasio; President Woodrow Wilson’s name is to be removed from New Jersey’s Monmouth University’s Great Hall after Trustees voted this week; while since 2016, Princeton has determined and defended to keep Woodrow Wilson’s name intact and some 75 other colleges debated renaming or removal of controversial figure names.
Although some such incredible actions and reactions elicited from the most unexpected people and places in the entertainment and business worlds seem understandable (makes sense) given the current social climate, and were not only admirably voluntary, but at times appearing extracted according to the trend now, other acts are not like the others and should be concerning to us as a nation which was also built on reasoning, logic, and law.
So we must examine our choices and the lines we draw, if they are in fact contradictory hindrances to our end goals.
Some of the natural questions that arise from hearing all the different reactions from around the country include:
Do we judge our historical figures for their flaws, for their public achievements, or in their entirety? And in so doing, do we follow Germany after WWII and ban any and all representations of their history?
Are all deeds created equal? (Should individuals troll and target racists? Are there different motivations of groups, corporations, politicians, individual business entrepreneurs, and socioeconomic classes in declaring in simpatico with the drawing of our lines or when they declare their own?)
Are we acting with clarity of thought or are some of our reactions emotional or visceral?
Where does this all lead?
We are not diminishing the gravity nor existence of real racial, social, and political injustice long overdue for redress. However, aware of human nature, of propensities and flaws of any country, yet still desiring the right outcome for a sophisticated and peaceful end, we have to be sure we are not going overboard nor operating without lucidity (are our blinders off?), and without ignorance to our history nor to our collective interests.
Going overboard, without pause or consideration to common sense or contradictions, as in public death threats and employer dismissal of ‘Central Park Karen’, cannot be overlooked. (How sensible or productive is it to cultivate the right behavior voluntarily from others less-illuminated regarding racism if the very same threats by racists and the very same expectations which are not overtly discussed, led, nor regularly trained by an employer are hurled back at the racists themselves?)
Certain offending perpetrators (say, mere verbal threateners) should be given the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to willingly change their tone and behavior more civilly. On top of the potential legal implications of their actions, the public embarrassment, social and professional ostracization as a consequence in not yet doing so, already would not be a trite effect.
As cities vote in favor to remove traitorous glorifying Confederate statues legally (especially from any public land or which have been funded by public taxpayers’ money, a known issue for years), that is a far superior engagement, testing of the American judicial and legal system, than barbarous mob-like action like that which recently seriously accidentally injured a fellow protestor.
That is to say, when we vote at the ballots, locally, nationally, we declare to our politicians the political and social lines that matter to us, and, subsequently, we rely on our system to run with civility.
Regarding other historical figures whose statues, names, plaques reside in private or public universities and institutions, and have had complex backgrounds, we have to consider if we know the history thoroughly enough and through the lens of those times and whether it suits us as Americans to eliminate all controversial histories from debate and from education.
All these figures were controversial with regards to racism yet also meritorious Americans:
- Founding Father & 3rd President Thomas Jefferson owned slaves;
- Founding Father & 4th President James Madison owned slaves;
- Founding Father & 5th President James Monroe owned slaves;
- 7th President Andrew Jackson owned slaves;
- 16th President Abraham Lincoln was the Emancipator but had varying views about slaves;
- 26th President Theodore D. Roosevelt won the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize and was responsible for the expansive National Parks but a big-game hunter and white supremacist;
- 28th President Woodrow Wilson earned the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize; was responsible for the creation of the League of Nations and for passing the 19th Amendment for a woman’s right to vote; yet as president of Princeton rejected Black students from matriculating;
- 36th President Lyndon B. Johnson who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 37th President Richard Nixon were slanderous when describing African-Americans, and Nixon was not friendly in speech of other minorities (Jews, Mexican Americans, Italian Americans, and Irish Americans);
- California Governor Ronald Reagan used derogatory words against Africans.
These above truly are more examples of the extent and meaning of the term ‘systemic racism’. It is embedded and intertwined with our nation’s history, which reveals how our past is unchangeable, but we should continue to strive and influence the thought process of our leaders and our neighbors and friends for our future. However, drawing a line to eliminate displays of our past is too narrow and binary of an option and leaves on the table valuable lessons yet to be taught to newer generations.
Understandably, corporate entities, influential associations, and high-profile individuals will wish to evolve with the times and the sentiments of the public (cater to their impacted customers and followers) in order to stay relevant, to stay solvent, and to stay in business. We know this to be true because of our collective previous experiences with greater public awareness of our health and of the environment which were partly responsible for companies doing away with, say, high-fructose corn syrup and artificial colors and flavors, or air-polluting polystyrene Styrofoam, or plastic straws, plastic bags, etc.
Even celebrities who try to be vocal, are called out by knowledgeable followers or critics sure to put them in their place.
So, when the majority of the public bands together to affect changes by drawing lines with our wallets, inevitably businesses and celebrities can bend to our will.
For example, Michael Jordan, the greatest NBA star of all time, was anti-political perhaps even critically for business reasons with his infamous remark, ‘Republicans buy sneakers too.’ Worth USD2.1 billion, he alongside other similar Black celebrities may be equally more concerned about their public image and bank accounts than real social issues — Kanye West (worth USD1.3 billion), Jay-Z (worth USD1 billion), Beyoncé (worth USD400 million), Will Smith (worth USD300 million), etc., So, I disagree with Julian Kimble’s assessment that we should condone these high-profile and rich entertainers and cut them a break. Although freedom in the U.S. means even money and image can be drivers for the most insensitive of actions and private thoughts of the rich, we can’t kid ourselves about what they might stand for and what matters to them.
We know that artists find inspiration anywhere and so another instance begs the question whether Alicia Keys’ latest newly inspired song from recent events on her album is purely for profit? (And if not, more admiration for her).
The rich have the resources to avoid difficult questions and social issues that affect the majority, so it is in the interest of everyone else to be enlightened about the truth and thoughtful, fully aware, of the support and perpetuation of what our spending dollars and votes bring, as well as not to allow corporations or celebrities affect where we draw our lines — (Aren’t we leading them when we mass protest?).
This brings us to what we want in our public institutions and where we would need to legally vote for any changes.
Large conglomerate TV networks and entertainment enterprises that removed classic creative works or added cultural sensitivity warning verbiages, though their corporate privilege to conduct accordingly over ownership of their works is warranted, does, however, allude to a question and criticism of insulting our intelligence over freedoms of artistic expression.
For public creative works, do we need our art, music, and other historically creative works be censored for us?
Beyond the obvious argument of our protected rights under the First Amendment, if, however, any or many of our public works are suddenly eliminated without systematic measures (not through laws nor voting, but rather through lawless efforts and forcibly through mob action), then we begin risking cultural sanitization without reasoning and logic for temporal myopia, and perhaps a line drawn too far.
The lines we draw to defend our causes, our actions and beliefs shouldn’t be moved based on corporate interests, celebrities, visceral and emotional reasons, but based on revelatory scientific reasons, logic, law, and with historical perspective.
Apologetic celebrities have also proven that lines are drawn and redrawn based on corrected or more enlightening information. However, if we don’t engage in continual self-education, multiple conversations with both like-minded and those with opposing views to understand the complexity and breadth of any issue (as it rarely does not go beyond the surface), we may draw our lines too far, too prematurely, or too indefensibly.
Our politics and diversity show that our questions and our challenges are more than just a black or white issue (pun intended); sometimes of multiple shades of grey instead.
And it’s not about where to draw the lines than it is about recognizing and embracing the inherent controversies, contradictions, and nonbinary options that exist in ourselves and our perspectives that can even move lines.
It is with all that understanding and awareness, that our collective or individual lines can be drawn as far, as intelligibly, and as emotively when we all drew that line together in George Floyd’s name.
Here are other stories you might like:
If you are not yet a Medium member and would like to show your support for me and my content, please consider becoming a member through me, here:
A portion of your membership fee directly supports my efforts in continually writing here but at no additional cost to you and without any changes to your membership — you still get full access to every story on Medium besides mine. But your support would make a real difference for a writer.
Thank you for reading!
© 2020 The Secret Aspirant. All rights reserved.
