NYTimes | At least in these cases that have galvanized the nation and the world in
protest, we all see the twisted logic that results in the exoneration
of the police who take away the lives of unarmed black men and women.
And why is that the case? It is not because what the police and their
lawyers present as their thinking in the midst of the situation is very
reasonable. No, it is because that form of thinking is becoming more “reasonable” all the time. In
other words, every time a grand jury or a police review board accepts
this form of reasoning, they ratify the idea that blacks are a
population against which society must be defended, and that the police
defend themselves and (white) society, when they preemptively shoot
unarmed black men in public space. At stake is a way that black people
are figured as a threat even when they are simply living their lives,
walking the street, leaving the convenience store, riding the subway,
because in those instances this is only a threatening life, or a threat
to the only kind of life, white life, that is recognized.
G.Y.: What has led us to this place?
J.B.:
Racism has complex origins, and it is important that we learn the
history of racism to know what has led us to this terrible place. But
racism is also reproduced in the present, in the prison system, new
forms of population control, increasing economic inequality that affects
people of color disproportionately. These forms of institutionalized
destitution and inequality are reproduced through these daily encounters
— the disproportionate numbers of minorities stopped and detained by
the police, and the rising number of those who fall victim to police
violence. The figure of the black person as threat, as criminal, as
someone who is, no matter where he is going,
already-on-the-way-to-prison, conditions these pre-emptive strikes,
attributing lethal aggression to the very figure who suffers it most.
The lives taken in this way are not lives worth grieving; they belong to
the increasing number of those who are understood as ungrievable, whose
lives are thought not to be worth preserving.
But, of course, what
we are also seeing in the recent and continuing assemblies, rallies and
vigils is an open mourning for those whose lives were cut short and
without cause, brutally extinguished. The practices of public mourning
and political demonstration converge: when lives are considered
ungrievable, to grieve them openly is protest. So when people assemble
in the street, arrive at rallies or vigils, demonstrate with the aim of
opposing this form of racist violence, they are “speaking back” to this
mode of address, insisting on what should be obvious but is not, namely,
that these lost lives are unacceptable losses.
