>.... One cannot ignore Police culture in all this and it may
>have far more influence than either 'racism' or 'classism'. If officers are
>expected to 'Take Control of the Situation', thay will do so regardless of
>the skin hue of the citizens. Racism may exist within the department, but
>the power of Police culture is always far stronger.
I agree. As a law teacher, I often confront issues of race and class in regard
to critiques of law. Sometimes there is a debate about which is more basic,
race or class; usually, this debate seems like a waste of energy. I have come
to the conclusion race and class are both aspects of a power system that
operates by a divide-and-conquer process. We call this system "the state."
Division among people is the basis for the state coming into existence. The
theory of the state is that it is a system for "harmonizing" and "controlling"
divisions among people, in the name of "justice." In practice, state power --
exercised by armed force -- is always aimed at "controlling" some activities
or people in favor of other activities or people. The controlled may be
identified by race or class; the favored may also be identified by race or
class. In theory, state power claims to be "neutral"; in practice, it is
always biased by politics or economics.
What John calls "the Police culture" is the culture of the state; many people,
liberal and conservative alike, believe in this culture; they worship the
religion of "justice," always thinking that when the state acts wrongly, the
problem is simply some "bad" person, and that the state itself is "good."
When John calls for "other methods of problem solving,"
>.....A more useful solution
>would be to change the Police culture itself to allow other methods of
>problem solving than than the now standardized Los Angeles Police Department's
>para-military methods.
he is also calling for other concepts of "justice," and implying a critique
of the state itself.
So, in this sense, I think John is right when he says:
>I don't think this is a Native American problem.
>I think it's all our problem and will remain as such until we stop ignoring it
>or continue to seek simplistic answers to complex problems.
To paraphrase what Muskogee-Creek medicine man Phillip Deer used to say:
"This is not just an Indian problem; it is a human being problem."
The problem is at least in two parts. One part is the widespread belief in
the validity of the state and its police power. This is a hard belief to
challenge directly. Calling attention to racism is one method of opening
this challenge.
The second part of the problem is the lack of a non-state basis for social
order. Indigenous communities are one such basis. But, as we know, these
communities are almost completely colonized by the state wherever the state
exists. This is the history of the last 500 years on this continent. Wherever
a community really exists (and the question of what is a real community is
an important topic to consider), there will be a basis for acting without
(and against) the state. This community, by the way, might even be a
community of "white, anglo-saxon racists," which only makes the problem more
tricky to consider.
So, when John says that
>....The problems can
>be solved with better Police Department training and policies, BUT it must
>be backed up and enforced, not merely verbalized. One cannot regulate opinion,
>but in an organization like a Police Department, behavior can be regulated.
he is jumping over the question -- "who or what is going to do the backing
up and enforcing?" As he himself points out, the elimination of racism in
the police department will not necessarily lead to a "humane" police. In fact,
it seems that the way the state has tried to eliminate racism in its police
is by having the police treat all persons equally inhumanely! The concept
of a "humane state" or "humane police control" may be self-contradictory.
Humanity may be possible only in real communities; and, as I suggested above,
we have a lot to think about in regard to what community really means.
So, finally, I disagree with John when he says (emphatically, it seems...)
>IF ANYONE WISHES TO TAKE THIS UP FURTHER, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE ISSUES
>RAISED
>IN MY LETTER TO BE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THIS NEWSGROUP.
I think the issues behind the police shooting of the boy in Lawrence, Kansas,
or, for that matter, behind any issue of police conduct, are directly
related to the deep questions of what it means to be a human being, what
are the proper relations among humans, and so on, that motivate much of
what we talk about. Every time we discuss a question of state power being
exercised -- "for" or "against" any people -- we are treading into paths
that raise the thorniest obstacles to understanding how we can achieve
sovereignty in the context of the "nation-state."
One more comment, in response to John's
>HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE ADVICE:
>If you live in an area where civilian control of the police is minimal,
>or the civilians controlling them, control them selectively, DO NOT CALL
>the cops unless the situation can be resolved correctly by the methods
>gleaned from old westerns. THIS IS NOT A JOKE!
I recall a late-night drinking bout with a local chief of police; sometime
during the conversation, he suddenly opined, "I pity any poor son-of-a-bitch
who has to depend on the police for help! I have my dog and my gun; I take
care of myself!"
-------------------------
Peter d'Errico
Legal Studies Department
University of Massachusetts 01003
voice: 413-545-2003
fax: 413-545-1640
email: derrico@legal.umass.edu
----------------------------