Race, Semantics and Policing

I am just going to start this one off saying that the police really should not be shooting anyone unless it is absolutely necessary. For instance if a student runs his car into a crowd of his peers then exits wielding a knife, a cop would be justified in using lethal force. I cite the Ohio State attack because SJWs at the university feel a need to protest this officer’s decision to end the threat before anyone else was hurt.

You could literally take this instance and use it as a utilitarian question. 1 knife wielding, car ramming attacker or the student body? Which do you choose?

Anyways, ‘systemic’ doesn’t just imply, it means that there is an institutional backing for a certain practice. Therefore, ‘systemic racism’ is racist acts carried out as a matter of policy rather than individual biases.

I will never make the claim that all police are perfect beings without a single ounce of prejudice. Of course there are some racist police. They are humans not robots; it’s only natural that they have their own inclinations which may or may not align with those of society.

That being said, the last I checked there are no policies directing police to target racial minorities. If some evidence comes out to the contrary, I will gladly retract that statement but to my knowledge there is none.

Arguing about systemic racism in policing is a hard one to make largely because of the definition of ‘systemic’ and the lack of substantiations. However, if there are still those SJWs hellbent on using the fun new word, they should direct it towards the legal system the United States government and big business has orchestrated over the past 40 years.

There it might be accurate to state something like ‘the current legal system has a systemic bias towards harsher punishments for less wealthy citizens.’ The legal system is a machine. It only cares about one color and that is green.

 

The Folly of Protesting for the Sake of Protesting

College campuses around the nation seem to be seething over with despair and frustration. Nearly everywhere student organizations are banding together to display their angst for the world to see.

My own peers hosted a protest just about two weeks ago. One of the organizers and speakers asked if I would show my support. My first question was ‘What exactly is this protest against?’ His response…’Love Trump’s hate.’ This quickly solicited a whole host of follow up questions and subtle critiques.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that I am concerned with the social and political ramifications of Trump’s ideology, but these protests that are seemingly against nothing need to stop. The fact of the matter is, as unfortunate as we may find it, Trump is going to take office come January. We should actually all be wishing him good health and what not because Pence far more reminiscent of Emperor Palpatine than our orange commander-in-chief, but I digress.

One of my favorite academic writers, Guy Standing, has a wonderful quote in his paper The Precariat and Class Struggle in which he describes the emergence of a new social class, the precariat, that I fear many of us will find ourselves a part of.

“The flames of struggle quickly expire in futile days of protest if all the struggle is about is being against what is happening.”

If a protest does not have a clear list of concerns and demands then it is going to fail. Movements cannot be sustained by vague mission statements not to mention the kind of perception generated in the public when confronted with protests of this nature.

I am not derailing protesting in general. It is our right and sometimes even our duty to so. What I am asking is that we only protest when our goal is clear. My fear is that by the time Millennials and Precarians mature and develop plans to address our real, growing concerns, the public will have already written us off. Protesting without a goal this early in the game is a disservice to our greater, formulating cause.