On May 23rd, an African American man named Robert Johnson was assaulted in Mesa, Arizona. A one-minute clip that went viral on social media shows Mr. Johnson cornered in the hallway of an apartment complex being pummeled by punches from several armed police officers. The victim, apparently unarmed, compliantly received the blows until he slid to the floor, unconscious.
Reports like these are not uncommon. It has become second nature to witness innocent persons being assaulted and even kill for ‘appearing dangerous.’ What is the psychology that fuels this paranoia to attack without remorse or recourse and find cause to deem it right?
Since man is considered an animal, one of the basic tenets of survival is that if one feels in danger their fight or flight responds. We either run away from the threat or we fight. From a psycho-emotional perspective, a person may express unaddressed trauma and pain either internally or externally. The person who suffers silently versus the person who shares his/her misery to achieve shared company typically personifies those concepts.
I believe that in order for a person to justify the harming of others without proper recourse; there must be a collective agreement to objectify or dehumanize a group, race, sex, gender or sexual orientation. Once this has been settled, other components will easily fall into place.
First, there has to be a cultural identifier in place to define what situations it is appropriate to exploit, manipulate or abuse another without public/judicial retribution. For example, a prostitute being ganged raped by five men may not be considered in the eyes of the populace a crime. Why? Culturally, a prostitute, despite being human, is defined as an object, a commodity for sale. Her body is for purchase to be used whatever the purchaser wishes. Therefore, if she happens to be sexually assaulted, as a commodity for public consumption, we are culturally conditioned to be apathetic.
Second, we create cultural laws that accommodate the majority who chooses to react inhumanely towards the innocent minorities. A popular example is the Trayvon Martin case. Trayvon, a 17-year-old boy was killed by George Zimmerman because he appeared threatening. What made him look threatening was a hoodie that he wore to make a trip to a corner store. Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted of his crime under the Stand Your Ground statute.
Dog whistle terminology coupled with racist stereotypes is a toxic marriage that the ignorant will use to justify actions that are fueled by a primal reaction that in many instances can be irrational: fear. If man’s basic reaction to a threat is fight or flight, what better way to overstimulate that mechanism by constantly reminding a certain group of people that they are “threatened” by a group “different” from them?
How many times have we seen in the news, reporters covering the murder of another innocent person identify them as a thug, being non-compliant, resisting arrest or an instigator, being part of a gang, smoked marijuana, had a criminal record and all of the above?
We have created a judicial platform that is based upon a rubric of dependent and independent variables that can be changed over time, depending on the whim of the dominant. Today, it is acceptable to kill a Black man because he appeared dangerous (e.g. wore a hoodie, appearing threatening, was not responsive to officer’s orders). Next, it will be considered acceptable to harm someone for making an offensive comment online.
The scary thing about this form of justice is that not only Black people are in danger but anyone who can be easily exploited in this society. The poor, homeless, women, children, the blue-collar worker or merely the voiceless; there are stereotypes tied to each of us that can give the world justification to harm us with no recourse or hesitation. The only fault that we can exercise is being in the wrong place, at the wrong time which we can’t control unless we are clairvoyant.
It is important to be mindful to not entertain stereotypes that reinforce irrational fears, respond to dog whistle terminology that promotes division and aversion and creates rationales to validate the dehumanization of some over others. The difference is an illusion that only support the powerful and keep the minority distracted. Being mindful of these distractions can help prevent unnecessary killings and the dehumanization of individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment