Here I stand as a Latin American analyzing the Ferguson scene. What follows is a less than eloquent analysis, but an analysis nevertheless.
I have little to offer, except to say that I have been racially profiled on several occasions. At one time when my hair was longer I was stopped consistently at the airport. I have been asked if my country of origin is Morocco, Peru, Guatemala, and other choices. I am actually from Brazil. My country has not been in a war in over 100 years. Lula, our former president, famously said, “why should I go to war? have you seen our beaches?” I feel the same way. So, here I stand: a foreigner, generally opposed to warfare, a peace-making man, yet, often receiving that suspicious look from authority figures in our culture. To make the situation even more interesting, my father-in-law is a cop, and I have family members who are involved in politics, law, and respected positions in police departments in my own country. And to conclude the matter I have family members in the process of adopting a black child. So, I am positionally, in a pretty interesting spot being immersed in both worlds a bit.
I look at Ferguson with paradoxical eyes. On the one hand I see that there are simplifications of the situation all over the media. On the other hand I see folks overly-complicating matters and offering the same solutions to the race-problem. Here is an affirmation: racism exists. It is not as severe as it once was in American history, but it still exists. I have learned over the years that adopting the full narrative of the right–though I have more in common with the right–is a bad idea, but to refuse to listen to the narrative of the left–though I have far less in common–is also a bad idea. In this case, concerning Ferguson both sides have spoken. They have spoken so dramatically that you would think that the other side is either drunk or lost in the sea of ignorance for not seeing the clarity of the other side’s position.
I don’t see such a need to offer such profoundly antithetical statements. I think there is a narrative on the left and on the right that actually gets it right. I think such a harmonized position can exist. I am not sure I have the wisdom to put it together coherently, but I do see it possible.
Senator Rand Paul is right to criticize the justice system and to affirm that there is a disproportionate amount of blacks in prison:
Three out of four people in jail for drugs are people of color. In the African American community, folks rightly ask why are our sons disproportionately incarcerated, killed, and maimed?
This is a reality that modern Republicans need to grasp. Many do not.
At the same time Democrats must realize that fatherlessness is a huge element in leading some in the black community to seek drugs or theft as a relief from such conspicuous absence in the home. White kids from fatherless homes also seek the same, but fatherlessness is a disease in the black community in a way that is not in the white community. Some have observed that homes where fathers are present do not necessarily mean that it is a safe environment. This is very true. I have invested some of my time into studying domestic abuse and realize that in some cases the presence of the father does more damage than the absence. But I am quickly to say this is not most cases. In most cases, the presence of a father (or a father figure) that is stable in the home provide greater and healthier options for black teens to thrive in society. The same, of course, can be said in the white community.
Another element missing is that theology needs to be joined to sociology. There is a sociological dimension that needs to be added to these conversations. The children of Israel did not walk around 20-50 years later after their slavery and oppression thinking that since time has passed therefore the Egyptians will treat them with dignity again. No. They were cognizant that the abuses they suffered left a cultural impression on them that they will not forget so soon. Culturally speaking, the abuses seen in the south not too long ago certaijnly leads to much of the skepticism in the black community towards the police, and that has bled over to many in our society outside the black communi
One must also be reminded that the fifth commandment serves as an exhortation to honor those in authority over us. Police officers, for better or for worse, are placed in a position of protection over us. We may choose to reject their help or to avoid contact with them, but we cannot go out of our way to disrepect or threaten them. We ought to give them the benefit of the doubt and treat them respectfully and be at peace with them as much as it is possible. And in most cases, it is possible, but our stubbornness and perhaps previous bad experiences force us to view them with unpeaceful eyes. We need to keep in mind that not all members of the police department in town are created equal. Each one is given a conscience. So, we ought to treat each one as worthy of our respect. The same, of course, needs to be said of how police officers treat citizens. A soft answer almost always turns away wrath. We need to keep that in mind.
We are not responsible for what people do or say to us, but we are responsible for how we react to what is said or done.
In this entire process there have been various redeeming cases. There were black men who protected a white man’s gas station, images that have captivated a nation, and an NFL player speaking nationally and directing the nation to Christ as redeemer. Every conflict is an opportunity to redeem the ugly. Some redemption has taken place. But there is no redemption when we affirm only one narrative of the story and dismiss other concerns from the other side. We owe brothers and sisters at least that courtesy.
