"Fault Lines"

Devin Joseph Metz

We as people are defined by more than we may know, care to realize or want to admit; and that does not mean that every definition will be accurate or even appropriate. There's this novel concept called opinion that each and every individual will find his/herself privy to and subject to; sometimes with both of these occurrences taking place simultaneously. It goes without stating that one's opinion is most times accompanied by judgement. This judgement can and will be viewed as legitimate or unfounded; but the catch here is that the one being judged is the only one that will feel this way; leading that person to believe that he/she has some measure of influence over how one will judge them.

You know what? That person isn't completely wrong, either.

Of course, regardless of whether or not we believe that we have a certain amount of control over how we will be judged, there is still a considerably larger portion of that perception that we have absolutely no control over.

So where am I going with all of this?

My overall point is that although we may have extremely limited control(and in some cases none at all) over how others perceive us, we still have a responsibility to ourselves regarding any initial perception that is shaped in response to our actions and behavior. Now for all of you headstrong readers out there full of pride and whatnot, I know what you must be thinking right now...

I couldn't agree more. 

We are not at all responsible for what another person understands. As a matter of opinion, I've always considered understanding to be relative to the individual; even if the collective appear inclined to the same understanding across the board. We may all share a similar understanding for something; but there will no doubt be slight differences in how one arrived to that point of understanding or how something is understood. You and I may both understand that people love to drink lemonade; but the reasoning that we couple with that understanding can and most times is different. I may fancy it a preferred beverage because it appeals to me as refreshing and light on the palate. You may feel that it is a preferred beverage because of the sweet taste, rather. What is understood is different from how it is understood.

Simple enough.

So let's put away the pitcher and look at this on a grander scale of thinking.

As much as I tried my best to avoid even talking about it altogether, even someone as reserved as myself couldn't pass by the large elephant in America's room for the sake of making a general point. 

On July 13th shortly before 9:00 PM central time, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of a second degree murder charge he received April 11th, 2012; less than a month after he shot and killed seventeen year old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. For sake of stating what George was up against with this charge, in Florida, a conviction for second degree murder constitutes a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. If a firearm was used in the murder, the mandatory minimum sentence would be twenty-five years in state prison.

*I have already voiced my reservations relative to the verdict rendered and I will not elaborate on those views. They are my own and they are hardly even relevant to what will be divulged in this entry.*

As was to be expected, the public response to the verdict in majority was highly negative; citing outrage, disappointment, sadness and extreme anger among many. There were reports alleging that riots were set to occur along with many other various protests and demonstrations in communities worldwide had Zimmerman been found innocent. People expressed their disdain in grand fashion via social mediums as well; some going as far as to threaten George, his supporters, and anyone who didn't share similar views regarding their disapproval of the jury's verdict.

Only a few of these events as far as rioting and increased violence have come to pass, fortunately(at least not on as large of a scale as I had initially anticipated); but it did open my mind; causing me to recall other court decisions in history that yielded a result that was not quite as fortunate.

Those of you who have viewed my earlier posts will recall my mentioning of the White Night Riots in San Francisco, California. In lieu of a rather lenient sentencing of Dan White in response to his assassinating openly gay San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, members of the gay community took to the streets in violent fashion; laying waste to anything and anyone in their path and causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage overall. The riots took place on the night of May 21st, 1979; the night before what would have been Harvey Milk's 49th birthday.

In elaboration, The gay community in San Francisco had an everlasting conflict with their police department; and White's position as a former police officer did very little to quell that anger and tension.

When the night concluded, 140 protesters, 61 police officers and 100 members of the public were injured and hospitalized. What made matters worse was when hours after the riot was ended by local police, they raided a gay bar in San Francisco's Castro District; arresting over a dozen patrons after beating many of them while still in their riot gear. This of course led to several people suing the San Francisco Police Department later on.

Gay leaders refused to apologize for the events of that night; forging a substantial spike in political influence for the gay community. This led to an eventual election of Mayor Dianne Feinstein in November of that year. Mayor Feinstein then hired the first Pro-Gay Chief of Police; which increased the recruitment of gay people in police departments and other affiliated positions.

This is viewed as a widely successful ending to something otherwise viewed as disparaging and volatile in that community; but I think that the White Night Riots serve as a control to this experiment. Many other riots were more costly than positively effective....

Whether or not you were born during this time, I'm sure most if not all of my readers from California can recall the more devastating riots from that region, be it the Watts Riots, the 1992 Rodney King Riots and more recently the riots that happened in response to  the verdict rendered for the police officer involved in the 2009 New Year's Day shooting of Oscar Grant by the BART Police in West Oakland, California.

The Watts Riots although incited by people that were tired of the oppression in the region still proved to be far more volatile of an event than anyone involved could've ever imagined. It took place in Los Angeles from August 11th through August 17th in 1965. The riot lasted six grueling days; resulting in 34 deaths, 1,032 injuries, 3,438 arrests and over forty million dollars in property damage altogether.
\

The 1992 Rodney King Riots were the direct result of the acquittal of the police officers that were video taped beating Rodney King. At the time, the riots that occurred here were considered to be the most detrimental with the highest death toll of any riot that took place in the United states up to this point. These riots also occurred over a six day span; covering most of South Central Los Angeles before spreading to other parts of the city. The riots occurred in late April and covered everything from widespread looting and arson to assault and murder; urging the California National Guard to get involved to get things in order eventually.

Although there was still a great deal of oppression reminiscent of the Watts Riots, the Rodney King riots were purely if not exclusively racially charged; drawing Hispanics and Korean business owners into the fray as well. What suffered more was the community and the economy overall with over 3000 buildings destroyed; resulting in over one billion dollars in property damage.

The riots that took place in lieu of the verdict rendered in favor of the police officer that killed Oscar Grant III on New Years Day in 2009 marked a violent response to a form of oppression that very much mirrors what happened to Trayvon Martin in the opinions of some. Although not nearly as substantial in comparison to any of the aforementioned, the riot brought to the forefront the undeniable rift that the incident placed between races, nationalities and factions; not to mention the rift between community and law enforcement.

Although some would argue that these riots took place for good reasons and the retaliatory efforts of the oppressed were necessary hardships, I stand to disagree.

Many of us who consider ourselves among the oppressed surely won't rise to the occasion individually or collectively to examine and discover how much of that oppression is implemented by our oppressors and how much of our own oppression we have lent to them; inadvertently oppressing ourselves in the process.

We who hate to be racially profiled and typecast, we who abhor stereotypical slander with unfounded sensitivity, we who preach and proclaim unity across the board are often the ones imploring that such unsavory treatment continues. This is not a general indictment of any variance. There are those of us who legitimately make a concerted effort to attain the unity only some truly favor; but the vast majority can lay no claim to the pursuit of peace, camaraderie and understanding of another culture's race or belief.

Before social media really thrust itself into our everyday lives, the often shameless, aggressive views of this majority were vented through news media and those of political status; regardless of whether or not their statements were justified, rational or even appropriate. Some forty plus years later, technology gives way to a brave new world where what one states on a social medium can lead to things that are further from the monitor and closer to the porch. Various social networks have become platforms where cyber bullies and internet thugs run roughshod; denouncing each other with their own opinions and jocking for position among those higher in exposure for their lack of social credibility. This is never more apparent than when something takes place in our country that leaves an everlasting impact on society as a whole.

I know what you're thinking: "Cyber Bullies? I'm no bully."

Of course you aren't......until you are. Be it online, in the news, or on the streets throughout the day, anyone willing to resort to despicable acts such as the issuing of death threats, harsh criticisms of another race or belief in lieu of any occurrence, and the ever embarrassing bandwagoning from those who only take part in this banter for the sake of choosing a side are all forms of bullying; and in my scope of reasoning, it is much more redundant and ridiculous than threatening.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I honestly never had much patience for any of them; but it wouldn't be too far fetched to assume that maybe our government would prefer that we continue to cling to the redundant acts aforementioned. It wouldn't seem like too much of a reach to consider that maybe the government uses media outlets and other means as a deterrent; keeping us considerably distant from what we should be paying attention to. Maybe that would've had something to with this piece of commemorative property:

Pretty snazzy, huh? That's actually something else that I've had an issue with as far as things that do nothing to dispel the negative stigma that is attached to us as black people is concerned: Overt, unnecessary exposure and promotion. I don't mind the posters, paintings and maybe even a graphic tee here or there; but when I look on Facebook and find that someone made a Trayvon Martin chain 1/4 of the size of T-Pain's "Big Ass Chain"(Google it. It really is a chain that says "Big Ass Chain"), I honestly wonder how one would expect not to be profiled or even find room to be appalled if someone does profile them? Whether you care or not about the opinions that one may shape about you, one thing remains true in the social aspect of our livelihood:

Perception Is Everything.

It definitely is everything; and that includes adjectives such as skewed, flawed, costly, counterproductive, and everything else that seemingly has something to do with how our government has chosen to "handle" our most pressing issues. For years on end, the need for debate was viewed as a key component to the implementation of positive change. With the handling of the war on terror, the Iraq war and most recently discussions over gun control, that need has slowly but undeniably morphed into a stage set for redundant opinion slinging and unproductive argumentative banter.

Our very own government presumably entrusted with the tools essential to our progression and societal development as a nation appear just as useless in my opinion as most of us taking part in hollow arguments and debates on various social networks. It takes entirely too long for parties or branches of government to come to a unanimous agreement when it comes to things that should be more paramount to them than it may actually appear to be; and the people are beginning to mirror the government so much now that the lines have definitely started to blur substantially.

If you observe a large group more concerned with preserving or improving their stance in stalwart fashion than actually putting their collective knowledge and abilities together to promote advancement and prosperity, who do you think you'd be looking at? 

The People or The Government?

If you observe this large group spending more time threatening and arguing with one another in a manner that makes them appear more adolescent than accountable rather than actually trying to find some common ground to stand on for the sake of their very livelihood overall, who do you think this brings down in the long run?

The People or The Government?

If you observe this large group exhausting vital energy on the opposition of another person or group's ideals or point of view instead of finding a way to coexist while respectfully disagreeing for the sake of actually creating solutions instead of preserving negativity, who can we say are truly at fault?

The People or The Government?

Nothing better than a good rhetorical question to get the blood boiling.

To be completely honest, we are all at fault. We are all guilty of this; be it those who issue threats, those who cyber bully, those of us who condemn others for shaping their own opinion while we uphold ours as sovereign, and especially those of us who keep this vicious cycle of redundancy in frequent rotation.

I would love to believe that it is merely speculation and more theory than actual conspiracy; but one can never really be sure nowadays. The cycle is far too prevalent:

 An issue arises that affects us all one way or another, the smaller percentage of our population joins together and holds our government accountable for finding a solution to said issue while the vast majority of us argue, chew out the opinions of each other and act as ridiculous as we possibly can in the process; which only adds to the typecasts and amplifies the perception we have predetermined about each other. 

While this is taking place, that gathering of people in higher public ranking of importance is busy doing the same; only falling short of the incensed threats that we are issuing to each other. All the while, people are losing hope, politicians are lining their pockets and the problems that we all still find ourselves struggling to deal with linger on instead of being addressed and effectively handled accordingly.

None of us have earned the right to point our fingers at anyone else; especially when we would discover after a bit of self examination that we have contributed more to some of the problems than we ever did to any of the solutions. The difference, however is that we as people have nothing to hide. We can't hide; no matter how much we would like to believe that we can.

Our government, however.......

..........they have a great deal of control over what we can and cannot see; at least until they are smoked out partially if not wholly due to a scandal of some sort. What would the government have to hide? Why would they feel the need to? What motive would they have for keeping us preoccupied with glimmers in the dark rather than revealing to us what only the light shows? Why these new proposals and bills? Why sanction what was supposed to be protected under constitutional rights?

Why give the people a greater portion of what doesn't matter in the form of social networking updates and advancements, video applications for our phones, ridiculous television shows and music that can't even hold a torch to seven or eight years ago to argue over; then when the issues come about, amplify the distractions even more so for the purpose of making us feel like we are actually engaging in real life issues?

What are they distracting us from anyways...........

..........................this? 

 It may behoove us to focus less on each other's faults and more on what is beginning to slowly shift beneath our feet before it surfaces.