When it comes to understanding Ferguson and the issues it’s raised for our country, my demographics work against me. As a majority male who has lived most of his adult life in small towns, the recent tumult don’t naturally resonate with me. However, I have enough non-Caucasian friends and loved ones to understand that I don’t understand – and that I need to understand. These are my thoughts-in-progress; I put them here for consideration and feedback.
Last week I attended an open discussion about Ferguson here at the boarding school where my wife and I live and work. Although there were a range of views expressed, it seemed that the comments and questions hovered around three foci.
- First, were concerns about the facts of the crimes: How many shots were fired? What was the order of events? What does the forensic evidence tell us? Did the officer know Michael Brown was a robbery suspect? Was Michael Brown an upright citizen? Who is looting who in the waves of protest? Generally the people who focused on these questions showed sympathy for the police officers and feel more uncomfortable about the riots than the Grand Jury verdict.
- Then there were concerns about the contextual reality: Why does the police force in Ferguson (and many other cities) consist mostly of white officers from outside the community? How do we know if we can trust the stories and “facts” reported by the media? Why are police officers equipped with military armor and tanks when addressing protests? Why were the defense attorneys allowed to instruct (or, as it seems, mis-instruct) the Grand Jury as they did? The people who favored these questions tended to distrust the authorities and feel more alarmed about systemic injustice than about the guilt or innocence of Michael Brown.
- Finally, there were deeply emotional responses. These were expressed less as points of discussion and more as asides: Why do black men fear police officers when they see them on the street? Why do people of color feel distrusted? Why did this Grand Jury decision feel like a return to the 1960’s? How many more times (asked an African American teacher) must I explain to my sons why another unarmed black boy in the news has been killed by the police?
I am reminded of 1770. Picture this: British soldiers, stationed in Boston, are surrounded by a mob of angry colonists. There is shouting, jeering, and rock-throwing until finally the soldiers, without receiving orders to do so, begin firing their weapons, ultimately killing five and injuring more. To the colonists, this was a crowning offense of the Crown’s increasing tyranny. To King George, mobbing his soldiers was the latest example of the Colonies’ backward unruliness and lack of respect. George took a principled stand in the matter: as British subjects protected by the military, the Colonists had a duty to support the British military with housing and taxes.
It’s funny: although the Boston Massacre is a staple of American Revolutionary history, what’s often underemphasized is that eight soldiers, four citizens, and an officer stood trial. The decision supported the Government’s view. All but two soldiers were acquitted; those two were convicted of manslaughter with reduced charges. In other words, the jury decided the soldiers were legitimately threatened and justified in discharging their weapons. The two who were convicted simply went too far. This was a Colonial court – not an English or military court. In fact, the soldiers’ defense attorney was patriot and future US President John Adams.
And yet these acquittals did not cool the colonists’ anger. To this day, almost 250 years later, these acquittals do not keep us from listing the Boston Massacre as a major precursor of the coming Revolution. We understand the Massacre as a symptom of bigger problems: the British Government no longer represented the best interests of the Colonies, and so the soldiers represented a threatening outside power. As John Adams wrote,
“Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right. This however is no Reason why the Town should not call the Action of that Night a Massacre, nor is it any Argument in favour of the Governor or Minister, who caused them to be sent here.”
In other words, the facts of the crimes may have led a jury to declare the soldiers innocent, but that did not change the larger contextual reality or invalidate the patriots’ emotional response.
I don’t know whose representations of Ferguson to believe. I don’t know if the Grand Jury decision was influenced by the Defense’s misdirection; I don’t know if that misdirection was a fumble or intentional injustice. But, in the end, it doesn’t matter. The more compelling fact is what it brings to light: a significant number of us do not feel represented by the law enforcement elements of our government. These Americans feel suspected and threatened rather than served and protected. And that is a fundamental problem.
As a professor of mine would say, you can’t draw a grand equal sign between events like these. The grievances of minority Americans today have uglier roots than the grievances of our founders. The solutions to our racial injustice are murkier than establishing parliamentary representation. And as hot as this problem is right now, I doubt a revolution is on the horizon. But I also hope we respond more like John Adams and less like King George.
I found the John Adams quote while refreshing the details of my memory with “Boston Massacre” Wikipedia entry.
Header image is “Boston Massacre” by Marion Doss, CC-BY- SA 2.0 from a chromolithograph by John Bufford
Timbits 
One of the things that I really enjoy about you is the way you can typically empathize with multiple conflicting perspectives about a heated topic. I believe that it is linked to compassion which is a very Christ-like quality. It is refreshing, when most people are quickly polarized, to hear from someone who’s willing to ruminate on all of subject matter at hand–rather than only that which they immediately identify with. Being able to admit that social/political questions are complicated and that it is difficult to resolve them adequately is something that I think more people should be willing to do. I personally know almost nothing about Ferguson. I don’t even know if it’s named after one of the people, or a member of the court, or a town. But I am glad that there are people like you talking about it, because I don’t like hearing about events from people who have dehumanized one group or another.
I would like to say something about revolution though. Our system of government is specifically designed so that a bloody revolution should not be necessary. We retain the right to bear arms just in case the great experiment does indeed fail. But I believe that the Republican and Democratic parties are both worried that they’ll lose their joint control of these United States. I also believe that the majority of the Citizenry are fairly fed-up with the way the argument between the Republicans and Democrats runs things. What people need to know is that they can be replaced peacefully. We don’t need riots to get rid of people in power who have ideologies that don’t accurately represent even the people who vote for them. We just need the people who are tired to organize, choose representation of their own, petition, and elect that representation. From President, to Sheriff, to law-makers, to the mosquito control here in Pasco County Florida… the “government” can be a collection of people that we like and trust. IF people decide they care enough to band together, find, and elect those people they like and trust. But if people don’t wake up to that sort of thinking, eventually the more bloody form of loss of control of the people (which is what Republicans and Democrats alike are desperately fearful of in Washington) becomes a possibility.
LikeLike