As Ferguson Burns...

This past week, the city of Ferguson erupted in violence, soon splashed upon television screens, the main pages of websites and the front pages of newspapers.  The police officer accused of wrongly shooting and killing a young man coming from a robbery escaped indictment.  The grand jury failed to find evidence enough to warrant such an action.  The district attorney, in a rather long-winded and ultimately ineffective statement, suggested that the piles of contradictory statements from “eyewitnesses” left the grand jury to consider only the physical evidence and in that light, there was insufficient evidence to move forward.  It was ineffective in that it did little to quell the chaos that ensued. 

First, it is important to understand and as a history teacher I feel qualified to explain that there are historical issues at play from within the black community about the behavior of the police.  While most Americans might have the highest regard for the police, there is an institutional memory among the black community – one in which the police was generally the armed wing of racist town governments and organizations that provided no protection.  While there have been great advancements thus far regarding race relations, it cannot totally wipe out the events of the past.  While some suggest it is time to move on, that is easier to say from the outside than to do from within.   

With that said, there are other issues exacerbating the problems.  First, you have people joining the fray and in the process, undermining the peaceful protestors by destroying local businesses and police vehicles.  While some protestors tried to discourage the damage, others were not to be deterred, calling into question their presence and their motives.  Secondly, activists who profess to speak on behalf of the community in Ferguson are doing more to stoke the flames than calm the passions.  Their power and status depends on a continued rage.  Instead of leaders who would try to disseminate the verdict of the grand jury and consider whether they had a point, we have instigators who seek only to keep the anger and hatred burning as bright as the fires in Ferguson. 

There are other side issues in need of discussion.  The “leaders” have a large role to play in what happens next.  Additionally, there is a greater outrage than what happened in Ferguson.  The vast majority of young black people killed are struck down by other black people.  However, no activist leader will pick up that banner.  That requires introspection on the part of leadership and the community and there does not appear to be the stomach for that type of discussion.  The activists are making their name by fingering the outsider “boogeyman” and keeping the spotlight away from the community.  That is an easier pill to swallow and one that most are willing to do.  However, ignoring the problem does not change the community’s reality.   

How do we proceed from here?  First of all, leadership across the board needs to explain the reasons why no indictment happened.  Sadly, it will not change many minds but it has to be on record to show the lack of racist intent.  Black leaders need to examine soberly the facts and ask if this is a true case of racism or the fact that the young man was out of line.  Second, some protestors have asked for body cameras on the police.  That might not be an altogether bad idea – what better way to quell such a debate again if there is video evidence pointing in one direction or another.  Again, some will still not be satisfied with video evidence suggesting their paradigm is wrong, but it is one more effort towards trying to get things right. 

As mentioned before, the vast majority of blacks killed in this country are killed by other blacks.  Very seldom are blacks killed wrongly by white police officers.  It does not jive with historical truths but today represents new realities.  Some of the racial ambulance chasers are not ready to give up the past, though they know better.  It makes the protests seem cynical and ultimately, a disgrace to the movement that first led them towards equality.  This takes no responsibility away from the police, who should always strive to be equal in its protection and its law enforcement.  Yet, the black community also has a responsibility.  Until they do that, things will not improve. 

There's Your Trouble

Ten years ago this week, the biggest American country band in the U.S., the Dixie Chicks, stepped upon a stage in London to an enthusiastic crowd.  With the imminent conflict in Iraq looming, lead singer Natalie Maines stepped up to the mike and said, “Just so you know…we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”  Within days, the remarks exploded throughout the U.S. shortly thereafter, the band’s career was essentially over.  In the aftermath of the controversy, there was a national debate over the first amendment and the right for Ms. Maines and the rest of her band, made up of Martie Maguire and Emily Robison, to speak their mind and voice their concern about the imminent conflict.  It is a discussion that still rings today.  Yet, there were three components of Ms. Maines’ comments that drew the greatest ire. 

One, the comments were made about an upcoming military action.  A friend once asked me, as a combat veteran, is it possible to criticize the government without affecting the troops asked to carry out the national policy.  Now, it should be noted that in my experience, as part of the First Persian Gulf War, opponents to the war was rather thin on the ground but we were aware of them.  In a general sense, I think most soldiers can separate them but we often personalize our mission and grow to care a great deal for our goals and the people we are seeking to help.  Therefore, it is hard to differentiate the criticism.  Additionally, people who have criticized the war effort will throw in, usually at the end or the very beginning, a “but we support the troops.”  It appears to be a throw-in and not sincere.  That is not to damn everyone who has said that but the perception is that it is disingenuous.   

Second, Natalie Maines made this “mistake” of declaring her political views in another country.  Right or wrong, Americans tend to consider such actions similar to that of traitors.  It is one thing to complain about the government in country – indeed, it is a healthy component of a thriving democracy that people have the right to speak their mind, no matter the opinion.  However, once a person is on foreign soil, one does not air dirty laundry.  President Bill Clinton, in his run-up to his 1992 victory over George H.W. Bush, experienced difficulties with stories about his protest in England against the Vietnam War.  Now, one can certainly suggest that one’s constitutional rights are not checked at the customs’ gate and that we should be able to exercise our privileges anytime, anywhere.  While that is true, there is a question of decorum.  Ergo, the situation of the Dixie Chicks in London certainly violates this widely held opinion of when and when not to criticize one’s government. 

Lastly and among those who support the Dixie Chicks, there is a bit of hypocrisy.  In an effort to extol the women’s right to speak their mind, they denigrate the right of those who oppose the band to speak theirs.  Hollywood stars and other musicians like Madonna and Merle Haggard complained that the backlash was ending their career.  The constitution says that each of us has the right of speech but there is nothing in the document to suggest we have the right to be taken seriously or agreed with.  One cannot choose to exercise free speech while at the same time hoping to choose the consequences or fall out.  Free speech does not work that way.  Each of our freedoms has consequences, both good and bad.  In the case of the Dixie Chicks, they may rightly declare they have the right to speak their mind but they cannot abridge anyone else’s rights and therefore, the consequences.   

Personally, I think the women are extremely talented and though I disagree with them, I do, on occasion, like to listen to their music.  However, politically, their concept of the first amendment is a bit childish and lacks a complete understanding that we all have those rights and one must endure the consequences.  The ladies have remained unapologetic – they should if they meant what they said.  Unfortunately, they also misjudged the situation and in doing so, truncated a great career.

 

Japan’s Uncertainty with Nuclear Power

This past week, large scale protests took place in Tokyo against the government’s decision to reactivate two nuclear power plants.  Meanwhile, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda explained that the purchasing of oil and gas imports to replace the missing energy sources was forcing the Japanese to quickly restart the heavily public invested nuclear plants.  However, the protestors fear that the dangers posed by Fukushima and other power plants have not subsided and the very nature of nuclear power plants in such a geologically unstable region like Japan makes little sense.

In the wake of the Japanese nuclear disaster, several countries banned or scaled back their nuclear power facilities.  It was a knee-jerk reaction to the calamity in Japan.  In Japan, racked by fear and uncertainty since the earthquake/tsunami, some Japanese are lashing out, albeit in an organized and peaceful way, to the news of the re-started plants.  It would seem that the Japanese government is in a difficult position yet the Japanese people have legitimate concerns about the viability of nuclear energy and the stability of those plants currently operating.  The Economist, in an article on the protests, suggested that the incident has ignited the urgency of a rather small group of liberals on the issue of nuclear power as a whole but the party that represents that point of view has not grown in support, a temporary reprieve for the Noda government.

While a country like Japan, unique in that it is a mountainous country without fossil fuels like coal, could have naturally gravitated towards geothermal power, previous Japanese governments have sought the clean and cheap alternative of nuclear power.  Throughout the world, nuclear power has provided an energy alternative that has seldom created the nightmarish scenarios that protestors and activists promised.  True, if things go wrong as they did in that “perfect” storm of natural disasters in Japan, nuclear power poses an extraordinary risk but the history and technology of the industry suggest that it would take another confluence of disasters to create the same ideal setting for catastrophe. 

Countries who sought to eliminate or reduce nuclear power energy were often those who had no history of risk but simply did so to mollify fears generated by the immediate hysteria of troubles in Japan.  In the United States, in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island near-disaster, nuclear power plant construction dropped to a stand-still yet, the increasing safety measures and technology have made such plants safe, dependable and productive.  It seems that the attempts to throw the baby out with the bathwater are unreasonable and illogical. 

If any country’s reactionary stance on nuclear power is understandable, it is that of Japan.  However, the Japanese have grown increasingly weary of their governments – the rate of government turnover is remarkable.  And a beleaguered government cannot throw away the millions of dollars in investments on a progressively safer and reliable energy source.  The geological instability of the region would suggest a shift towards geothermal is advisable but for now, the Noda government must utilize the resources they have in order to bring more normalcy to daily lives while working diligently to upgrade all nuclear facilities. 

Not Your Father's Protest

One of the lasting impressions of the Occupy Wall Street movement that swept the country is the rather vapid nature of the protestors’ arguments and their inability to express their point beyond the slogans they yell at the top of their lungs. The Egyptian revolution that booted Hosni Mubarak from power have replaced his autocratic rule with two parties who have not shown the capacity or the ideological wherewithal to implement the democracy so craved by those in the streets. What is the reasoning for these two scenarios? It might have much to do with social networking.

The counter-culture movement of the late 1960s can be described in many ways, and has. However, the essence of the movement was a set of literature, discussions and an evangelist’s zeal to recruit and spread the message. Authors like Hermann Hesse, Jack Kerouac and Henry David Thoreau heavily influenced the movement, as did the eastern philosophies; each used to reject the predominant culture of the country. The movement also depended on group discussions to work through their philosophy. Whether gathered in salons or bars, the movement was dependent upon the person’s ability to express and explain his or her ideas. Lastly, the leaders of the movement were able to go throughout a campus or an area and make their point, argue against those who disagreed with them and string together cogent arguments. Personally, I think the counter-culture movement was filled with naïve and spoiled children whose arguments were Pollyanna but they studied, they read and had the capacity to make their point. Today’s social networking undermines what used to be necessary for protests.

Let’s take the example of Egypt. What best explains a movement to get rid of one dictatorship in lieu of two; two political parties that do not treasure or purport democracy or participatory government? Social networking and media are not a medium for an exchange of ideas but of slogans and chants. Yet, when one is speaking of ideas as complex and potentially dangerous as the protest against government, it would behoove activists to have a clearer idea and goal in mind than just removing a leader. I sincerely believe the reason for the elections of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi, if I’m to believe the rationale for the jettison of Mr. Mubarak, is due to a lack of a discussion and lack of consensus on what type of government they wished. While it may be true that the two groups are more connected to Egyptian values and culture, they do not express what the protestors said they wanted – a greater political voice, more say in the running of the government. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi do not represent a possible government that would tolerate too much opposition. Recent further unrest, I’m afraid, are a sign of things to come for the mis-represented Egyptian people.

In the United States, the voice of the 99% is as incoherent and divergent as one would expect from 99% of anything. They speak in slogans that are material for their posterboards. The vast majority of people at some of the larger protests do not seek the betterment of society but the destruction of the same. Indeed, their numbers suggest they are actually the 1%, if that. There is no literature or search for truth in these protestors. The fact that they are content with the slogans and mantras and signs suggest that the truth holds no interest. The protests and the gatherings are spontaneous in the worst sense of the word. They exist without an examination of the facts of their case. They exist without an examination of possible solutions. Indeed, these protests exist without much thinking at all. They were the product of “meet here” and “click like” if you embraced the idea of muddling up the works.

It is not that things are perfect or that a people do not have the right to want a better government. However, the organization of these movements lacks the information and forethought about what to do once they have grabbed the world’s attention. Social critic Neil Postman said, “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.” The egoism to demand change but the passivity that prevents study. Sound familiar?