Posts

On May 25, 2020, a white officer named, Derek Chauvin, brutally knelt on the neck of a Black Minnesotan man named, George Floyd, for almost nine consecutive minutes, killing him. This week Chauvin stands on trial for the murder of George Floyd. Kopniske will provide context of Chauvin’s brutal murder and Stillwell will address the problems arising during the trial.

(Yaaqob edited the following blog)

Context by Kopniske: 

We can look into history and to the Afro-Pessimistic theorists we have been reading to grasp the context of the Derek Chauvin trial: why it is so significant that police departments of major cities have been preparing for months in anticipation of his verdict. George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chuavin through the excessive use of force and asphyxiation, as attested to by witnesses who did not know him and his good friend who watched it happen and who pled for his life. Chauvin’s defense argues that Floyd did not die because of lack of oxygen due to force, but because he had an underlying heart condition and illicit drug use. After two weeks of prosecution making the case against Chauvin, Derek Chauvin invoked his fifth amendment right and did not testify to his actions that day. 

We learned from the Afro-pessimist theories that the superstructure of white supremacy that we live under relies on a substructure of anti-Blackness. Derek Chauvin has come to represent the superstructure in this trial, and has also come to be the face of police violence in the current moment. We all know that his violence against George Floyd was a catalyst for many people to wise up to how rampant and deep seated police violence is in America. What are the anti-Black beliefs that have even made this trial a trial? It is the core falsehood that “some people”, namely Black people, deserve to be killed by the police, the thought that there is something you could do or some way that you could be that would warrant the state in taking your life. And so, in this defenseless trial, they have chosen to put George Floyd’s character on trial, by proposing that he died of drug use and a heart condition. The defense does not seek to make a case based on fact, they hope to use the racist conditioning that white americans have internalized to make everyone who feels outraged by this killing question if they should be. 

Problem by Stillwell:

I believe that there are several problems with this situation and even with the trial itself. I think that we have become desensitized to the process of prosecution. Though we are very sensitized to the act that causes the process of prosecution. I believe the SoC has fallen in love with the sensationalization of beatings and public executions to the point in which, yes, we believe “no justice, no peace” but there seems to be a level of peace that is a lurking. Though in the back of my mind, I am hoping it is simply the quiet before the storm. I am sure there is a storm coming regardless if Chauvin is presumed innocent or if he is presumed guilty. I cannot help but to anticipate a Blacklash or a Whitelash. 

There is a greater underlying problem called indifference and that indifference is the Achilles heel of America. That indifference is something that has been taught through generations and generations of Whites who witnessed Black public executions, lynchings, Black bodies burned, and Black body shot down that it is easier for White men, women, and children to empathize with a dog or a polar bear rather than a Black man.  

There are a number of people who are waging bets on whether Derek Chauvin will the presumed guilty or innocent. Some surmise that he will not have to go to prison, while others are saying he will get at least 10 to 20 years in prison, and possibly the death penalty while others believe the death penalty is completely off the table. With all this controversy and all these opinions that are whirling in the wind, my greatest concern is that regardless of what the outcome is, whether Officer Chauvin is innocent or guilty whether he serves prison time or not, whether he gets the death penalty or not.  

The thought I cannot get out of my head about this entire situation which brings about the most frustration; is that within 30 days of the verdict being read, that everyone will go back to life as usual and there lies the problem. 

In our third post of the semester, we will be questioning and dissecting the current defects within American Racial terminology and historical categorization based on minority racial experiences. The struggle of Anti-Blackness is global and comes from individuals from varying racial and ethnic backgrounds and that often includes individuals who are labeled as POC. We will interrogate the current terms and attempt to present a solution, this will be separated into 3 sections labeled and authored by the following, Problem by Rachel Kopniske, Context by A., and Solution by Obie Stillwell.

Problem: To get at the root of the tension between these two terms, we have to look at who they are used by and how they are employed in social contexts. In the racialized world, the term Black is used to refer to the racial category that was imposed on African people at the beginning of European colonization and imperialism. It currently refers to both African people and those of the diaspora. The signifier, Black, carries the meaning of the racial category, which is tied to a history of political struggle. The term person of color (POC) traces its popular use back to the Civil Rights Movement, where it was used by Black activists to tie together the struggles of racialized and colonized people worldwide. Although first used by Black activists, the term POC is largely used by white western people today.

How can this distinction contribute to anti-Blackness? Anti-Blackness pertains to the beliefs and practices that collectively erode the humanity of Black people (Unapologetic by Charlene Carruthers). What does it say that the majority of the people who use the term people of color are NOT people of color? It has something to do with recognition. The term groups together all non-white minorities and is often employed in the discussion of political issues such as police brutality, gentrification, and wealth inequality, which have been shown to impact Black people at disproportionately higher rates than other racial groups. Because of the political and seemingly moral connotations the word Black carries, POC is used as an alternative that allows white people to sidestep the uncomfortable feelings that naming race in a straightforward way brings up. Why not just refer to people as Black? 

Context: Non-Black people conflate being a person of colour with being Black. Historically white supremacists called Black people coloured. This violently anti-Black term was used to solely define Black people by their colour, focusing not on their humanity, but on their race. As a result, Black theorists spoke militantly back to power, declaring themselves people of colour to place the emphasis on being people first. In addition to Black people being deemed coloured people, communities of Asian and indigenous North and South American people have also been called minorities or people of colour. This conflation was heavily popularized by the mobilization of the Chicago chapter of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense Chairman Hampton’s Rainbow Coalition which worked to unite Black and brown people of colour together to confront the white power structure. Years prior, Black actress and activist, Josephine Baker also theorized that overthrowing white supremacy could be done through people of colour standing as a united front against the white power structure. In fact, she adopted and raised children from different ethnic backgrounds, called the Rainbow Tribe, to accomplish this. She theorized that if children were raised anti-racist, they could tackle white supremacy head on. Although operating as a united front against white supremacy is beneficial, it fails to recognize the very vastly different injustices Black people experience. This results in the conflation of non-Black people of colour pitting their lived experiences with Black peoples’ dehumanization. The injustices non-Black people of colour face pale in comparison to the dehumanization of Black people. Therefore, the experience and identities of non-Black people of colour cannot be conflated with the lived experiences and identities of the Black community.

Solution: It’s interesting that there are so many different variations of “People of Color” v “Black” identifier that bring about variety of emotions from various generations. The response from someone who grew up in the 50s and 60s versus someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s and/or 90s versus those who are experiencing “Blackness” now, varies within the African – American community.

It is significantly different to say, “Colored People” versus “People of Color” we also must be conscious that “Black” or “Blackness” and more specifically Anti-Blackness has had its derogatory identification also. But I believe that from a political standpoint it is important to identify who you are speaking of, who you are speaking for, and whom the policy, law, regulation, or legislation is intended to affirm, progress, or reconcile.

Black people specifically experienced Jim Crow, Segregation and Redlining and these policies were specifically connected to skin color. Today, when many say “People of Color” they are being more inclusive of those individuals who are Bi-racial, Latin X, Asian and of African descent in the past 30 years.

There are still issues today that affect Black people that need to be addressed for Black people. If other racial categories received their “liberation” as a byproduct of “Black liberation;” so be it. But America must be extremely specific when speaking of policies that are to “right the wrongs” of historical Discrimination, Jim Crow and Segregation against Black people. As the wording that proceeds and defines any Legislation must be clear as these words that address the specific disenfranchisement of Blackness; also acts as a healing balm to the wombs of racial discord, in this great country we call America.

With an ever-evolving consciousness we now have a greater understanding of the impact that Black people being the only enslaved ethnic group on American soil has had. A dehumanizing, commercializing and criminalizing ideology of “Blackness” has forced the African American Community to arrest, indict and hold in custody the identifier of “Black” over the identifier of “People of Color”. In a desperate attempt to bring under submission a narrative that has strangled Black progress in America.

So, we as America must continue the plight of re-commercializing, re-defining and re-humanizing both of these terms “Black” and “People of Color” and in doing so, rewrite our own “united” narrative in which we truly begin to judge one another by the content of our character and not the color of our skin.

In our second post of the semester, we will be taking a look at how Anti-Blackness played out in the interview of Miya Ponsetto. Miss Ponsetto falsely accused Keyon Harold Jr, a 14 year old black boy, of stealing her cell phone and proceeded to physically attack him over the false belief. These actions led to her being interviewed on CBS This Morning by Gayle King. Which is what we will interrogate in the ensuing post. First, A. will breakdown exactly what were the concerning issues in the interview. Next, Rachel will provide context so that we can build a full picture of the issue at hand. Finally, we will have a prospective solution provided by Obie.

The Problem:

Ponsetto’s interview with CBS journalist Gayle King profoundly highlights her rampant Anti-Black racism as she vulgarly cuts King off in mid-sentence, attempts to control the direction of the interview and silences King by putting her hand in front of her. These classic outbursts employed by Ponsetto directly demonstrate how she believes she has a right to exercise power over King. As a white woman, she strategically uses her power to speak over top of King-while going to the extent of calling her by her first name. Historically white women have called Black women by their first names in order to belittle them in professional settings. Essentially, this reduces Black women who are professionals to that of amateurs. In Ponsetto’s graphically Anti-Black interview, she purposely calls King by her first name to put her in her place. Ultimately, King faces the wrath of Ponsetto, and the problem is that she is not the only Black woman to have to endure this very same fate at the workplace. In the workforce, countless Black women are subjected to the violence of white women. Worst of all, they are expected, by default, to turn the other cheek. Ponsetto expects the same of King and this expectation plays directly into the humbling of Black women: a phenomenon in which no matter how cruel Black women are treated, they are expected to be the bigger person in the face of injustice.

Context:

The context of this interview begins with the assault on Keyon Harrold Jr. by Miya Ponsetto on the afternoon of December 25th,2021 in a hotel lobby in New York City. Ponsetto had misplaced her phone, asking hotel staff for assistance in finding it. At some point, Ponsetto fixated on Keyon Harrold Jr, a 14 year old boy who was going to have lunch with his father, accusing him of being the one who stole her cell phone and insisting that he show hotel staff his cell phone proving it was not her property. When Keyon dismissed her requests, Ponsetto proceeded to jump on him, attempting to stop him and steal his phone from his hands, and exclaiming she would not let him get away with her phone.

Miya Ponsetto was not initially charged or arrested for the incident and went on to have an interview with Gayle King of CBS This Morning, sharing her stance on the attack with her attorney by her side. This was prior to her arrest on January 8th. In the interview, Gayle King prompts Ponsetto to share her side of the story, knowing viewers had seen the viral video of her assaulting Keyon. She is immediately defensive, dismissing the incident and feelings of both Keyon Harrold Jr. and his father, saying they were unbothered by what happened because they ate a meal afterwards. Ponsetto denies the claim that her actions could have been racist because she is a Puerto Rican woman of color, and says that “her accusation [of Keyon Harold Jr. stealing her phone] is not a crime,” failing to mention at all her attack on Keyon, the crime she was charged with. Her flippant attitude towards the impact of her actions is reflected in how she interacts with Gayle King throughout the interview, often trying to dictate the dialogue, refute and critique the questions Gayle poses, and disrespect her as a professional by cutting her off and challenging her credibility at the end of their interview.

The Solution:

It is always interesting to me that the solution to racially infused problems, issues, and challenges such as these are not hidden in a new or an improved policy, rule, or regulation. But in the consistency of the laws that have already been put in place. The biases that occur are blatant; these biases that occur are to protect whiteness and to promote anti blackness. America still struggles with the language of the constitution and the 14th amendment. This is America’s Achilles heel.  The solution is to enforce the law and enforce equal protection of the law to all people. The fact that Miss Ponsetto was able to walk away from this incident after physically attacking a black young man who was also a minor is disheartening but not surprising. The fact that Miss Ponsetto who as a white woman was able to gather herself, go back home, get proper legal representation and not only that; was able to utilize white privilege to get on national television and attempt to rewrite the narrative. Miss Ponsetto desired to re write a narrative to create a new context and soften the cruelty of her actions, this access and liberty expresses the power of being white in America still in 2021.

We see this time and time again this does not surprise anyone but the solution again I say is enforcement. Enforcement of the law to all people and that means the protection of the law to all people. We can sit back and play blind to this situation, but we who are “woke” all know that if it was this young black boy who attacked Miya Ponsetto unjustly in this same manner; this young man would still be in jail and he would not have received the opportunity to rewrite history on national television.

In our first post of the semester, we will be taking a look at how anti Blackness played out in the case of Miya Ponsetto. Ms. Ponsetto falsely accused Keyon Harold Jr, a 14 year old black boy, of stealing her cell phone and proceeded to physically attack him over the false belief.

(Right) Keyon Harold with his son Keyon Harold Jr. (Left)

A screenshot from a television appearance by Ms. Ponsetto after the attack on Keyon

First, Matthew will give us some context surrounding the incident. Then, Obie will break down what’s wrong with this interaction and how anti-Blackness is at play. Finally, A.Y. will provide some insights into how this problem can be addressed.

Context:

As we have seen countless times throughout history a white adjacent woman has attacked a Black individual without cause. If we ask for other examples outside of this case to understand this situation through a historical context lens, we can go back to 1955 with the lynching of Emmett Till. A white woman went out of her way to lie on a young Black child and it led to him being brutally murdered. This example from 65 years ago shows that we are living within the same systems that perpetuate and allow Anti-Blackness to grow and thrive within our societal way of thinking. These systems are what reinforced the entitlement that we seen exhibited from Ponsetto. She attacked a Black child because the system in place told her that she could. This same reason is also why we see no remorse throughout her interviews. At the end of the day, Ponsetto believes that she reacted in a necessary fashion because the act of stealing is just another crime that a Black individual would commit. She created a narrative surrounding this child and the theft of her phone based on preconceived notions and stereotypes of Black individuals. Even once the child is cleared and her phone is found inside the hotel, she still believes that all of her actions are justified. The question is what can we do? How can we tear down the systems that perpetuate Anti-Blackness? Is empathy and progress a possibility or will these systems continue to allow white and white adjacent individuals to exercise authority over Black individuals?

The Problem:

The Problem is Ms. Ponsetta for the sake of justification has clearly placed herself in a marginalized Race category though few would believe that this is “actually” how she lives her day-to-day life. Ms. Ponetta has used her ethnic heritage at her convenience, though her own actions and persona clearly are characteristically, socialistically, and idealistically a white woman of privilege. She is trying to “have her cake and eat it too”…. Though many would call her a modern day “Karen.”

An additional problem is a lack of accountability due to historical trends of White people not being held accountable for actions of Anti-Blackness. In an interview with Gayle King on CBS This Morning; Miya stated “I’m Puerto Rican , Greek and Italian I cannot be racist.” Maya believes that there is an opportunity for shared responsibility though she engaged accused and tackled this 14 year old child; ironically the same age of Emmett Till when he was accused of whistling at a White woman.  Ms. Ponsetta stated that the “father and I we immediately could have started just speaking at a lower tone and probably that would have handled the whole situation a lot better” … When Gail King questioned this; Ms. Ponsetta replied I’m saying that both of us, I said that both of us… Ms. Ponsetta’s attorney stated “Bottom line is; this issue is much bigger than I think Miya is appreciating and she sees it as a very simple thing.

Ms. Ponsetta does not get the “Black pass” though she so desires to. But she has not and does not associate herself as a minority in Race or Ethnicity. From the perspective of Race; Ms. Ponsetta’s Whiteness has been projected upon her by society and she has clearly accepted this projection and identifies herself as such; using it to her advantage up until this point. Ms. Ponsetta also does not classify as a minority “Ethnic” group; as there is a solidarity for the sake of survival, unity and commonality and she presented none of those characteristics. Also within the Ethnicity of the minority; there is a relative overall respect for your elders and unfortunately in 2 different situation Ms. Ponsetta  broke that “code” by disrespecting: 1) The manner in which she spoke to the 14 year old’s Black father; and 2) When she while gesturing with her hand; told Gail King “ Alright Gail ….ENOUGH”, on CBS This Morning.

The solution:

The way that Ponsetto exercised white authority over Keyon Harrold Jr and Gayle King speaks volumes for itself. If she was serious about taking an introspective look at how she personally upholds racism, Ponsetto must first address why it is that she assumed that a Black teenager stole her phone. She must also address why she proceeded to falsely accuse him of theft. Ultimately, Ponsetto must address why she thinks Black people have to answer to her. Why is it that she chooses to exert power over Black people in the first place? As seen in the video footage from the December 26th incident, Ponsetto not only accused Harrold Jr of stealing her phone, but proceeded to put her hands on him. She physically restrained him and tried to involve hotel staff to help her. As a white woman, she utilized her dominance over a Black teenager and again when she silenced King, a Black CBS broadcast journalist, in mid interview. Miya Ponsetto is far from being the first white woman to weaponize her womanhood and most likely is not the last until non-Black people collectively make a commitment to become anti-racist. In order to change the reality that Black people face, white women must cease from exercising authority over them.