This one may be shorter than normal, because I don't know how much I'll have to say. We shall see.
1991. Cops have beaten King mercilessly for almost a minute and a half, which we see on videotape. Some of us are horrified. Some of us are not. I think everyone knows the plethora of emotions and reactions that different segments of the population had - which were only heightened by the later verdict that allowed the four officers to walk.
Black people (generally speaking) saw the entire situation as a reminder of the racial caste system that has - yes, 'has': not 'had' - always been present in America. To their credit, I think most white people saw issue with the whole thing as well. I'm not sure they extrapolated the verdict to the extent that black people did, but they understood the problem that the Rodney King situation identified for some and highlighted for others.
Then of course came the riots. I understand the theory behind the action, but obviously not the execution thereof. In no logical way did looting, burning buildings, and killing innocent people like Reginald Denny make any sense whatsoever. If anything, acting in such a manner was only going to give the police the perfect excuse to do even more in similar situations - which they did, and not just in LA.
Black people did "get their revenge" eventually. It just took three years.
Two years after Laurence Powell and his friends walked out of that LA courtroom, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered. All signs pointed to a certain former football player. Said football player famously...well, everyone knows the story. The trial came and Orenthal had some of the best attorneys money could buy. Johnnie Cochran made himself famous, as did Chris Darden and Marcia Clark from the prosecution.
When the verdict was announced, it felt like a victory for many black people - not so much because we cared about OJ (although a lot of people may have), but because we beat a 'system' that had done us wrong countless times in the past - one of which, of course, was the situation from the beginning.
So, what's the point of this? There isn't one, really. That's why it's more brief - and quite honestly haphazard - than most of these. I guess its utility comes in its timeliness (King was arrested earlier this week) and the 'really stretching it' parallel between Rodney and another black man who wishes we could all just get along.
(Ed. note: this note might start to straighten out now)
The president beaten down...hypothetically...for about two and a half years. As circumstance would have it, the group of people who hypothetically beat the president has a similar profile to that which supported the cops as they physically beat Rodney (if not a similar profile to the cops themselves). Entitled white men used to having authority and never dreaming it would be challenged by a black man? Check.
That said, this isn't totally about race. Large part? Absolutely. However, the authority issue is the main thing here. Obviously, the president isn't the first president that the GOP has opposed. They weren't fans of Bill Clinton either...but Clinton was never compared to Adolf Hitler. Or the Kool-Aid Man. Or anyone who fits the obviously-large group of people and characters known as "anyone in between". People can deny it all they want to, but race is a large part of the equation here.
Getting back to the point, the cops and the GOP both felt their authority was endangered by someone whom they didn't feel had the privilege to challenge them. (The cops, of course, were wrong in their sentiment.) So both groups did what they are wont to do: they used the three-pronged attack that they co-authored the book on: power, privilege, and the lowest common denominator. The cops mainly focused on the first two, while the GOP threw in the latter whenever necessary.
Oddly enough; the three black men discussed are the last three to reach their levels of fame via deeds that involved neither sports nor entertainment (Simpson was plenty famous as a football player, but became a household name after the trial). By most accounts, Rodney lost. Simpson won (although he lost later). Why did Rodney lose? Lack of resources. Rodney didn't have what it took to beat the 'system'. Simpson did, and that's why he won.
Like Rodney and Simpson, the president has an opponent ready to break him and establish a sense of authority it feels it should always have. Like Rodney, the president felt like getting along was the way to go. Like Simpson, the president came with it once he was backed into a corner. Now comes the crucial part: does he fight to the end, win this battle, and smile in victory...or does he take what the opponent gives him and cry on camera to an unforgiving public?
He may have to tear through a supposed authority to win. That task will become much easier if he remembers that unlike Rodney or Simpson, he is the recognized authority.
*I referred to Rodney King as 'Rodney' because there's only one person with the last name of King whom I will ever refer to as 'King'. If you don't know who that is, check back in January.
No comments:
Post a Comment