July 30, 2009
Political Science Department
Just to show that it's possible . . .
I'm thinking, more and more, that the whole Henry Louis Gates thing is a racial Rorschach test. It's a misshapen blob of an incident that, regardless of what can and should be learned from it, everybody with a strong opinion about The Important Issue of Race in America learns, once again, what they already believed.
I don't think that's necessary to explain what happened. I'm not, at this point, interested in discussing the actual racial aspects of their encounter, or the aftermath.
Because there is a much simpler explanation -- one that might even be true -- which quite fully explains the unpleasantness, the deception, and the bombastic behavior on both of their parts.
Let's review the facts. Well, no, we can't; we don't have the facts. We have some of the facts, and, far as I can tell, they're summarized pretty well here. My short version:
Guy comes home from a trip, with a driver. Front door is jammed, so he goes in through the back door, and then comes back around to try to force the front door open. Neighbor, seeing two guys apparently (and, in fact) trying to force a door open, calls 911 to report it, adding that maybe it's not a burglary because they've got suitcases and might be returning from a trip or something.
Cops are dispatched, and arrive more or less promptly, but after the driver is gone, and the resident is home alone.
So far, everybody agrees on that, more or less.
The next part is unclear, to me, and not just because there's two stories.
According to the police report, the cop -- Crowley -- asks Gates to step outside. This means to me that, at least according to the police, Gates was inside the house, and suggests that Crowley was outside when he was doing the asking. Okay.
According to Gates, Wikipedia says that "when the officer asked for ID, Gates replied he had to get it inside, and then officer Crowley followed him into his home without permission." Which suggests that Gates was outside his house when asked for the ID.
I'm sensing some idiocy here. (I think both the cops and Gates are lying, actually, and each is doing so against their own best interests.) But let's, for the sake of argument, go with this: Gates is inside his house when there's a knock on the door, and there's a cop there, asking him for ID. He agrees to provide it, and leaves the door open as he goes to get it; he does, and it makes clear to the cop that this is the guy who lives there, and that there's no reason for any further investigation.
Up to this point -- assuming that all that's just what happened, and nothing more is -- nobody's done anything wrong, although at least arguably Gates has been stupid by not locking the door.
Let's try that again, this time with a bit more sense. There's a knock on the door, and Gates answers it -- why not? -- to find a cop there, demanding ID from the person inside the house. Now, he's in his home (provided to him by the U, but it's his home), and he's got every right to say, "No, thank you; go away, please," and, leaving the door locked behind him, go to bed, but he doesn't.
Let's let him be reasonably cooperative. "Sure. I'll get my ID." He does, holds it up to the door; the cop reads it, and we're at about the same place.
Except, of course, that didn't happen. Both men tried to pull rank, and I'm guessing that both of them did it for precisely the wrong reason -- as they're both members of classes of people who often both see themselves as beleaguered and oppressed, while both live a life of almost preposterous privilege, often seeing it as their due.
Gates is a tenured professor, and Crowley's a cop. Both are surrounded by colleagues and sycophants -- fellow tenured types and students in one case; other badged types, badge bunnies, and badgelickers in the other -- who will, even without request, leap to the unfounded and often utterly preposterous conclusion that they did the right thing simply because of who they are, and both have been inculcated to believe that they have earned special respect from all they encounter because of the status that they have achieved. Both are used to having their word taken as holy writ, no matter whether or not they happen to be full of it -- and, in the case of both tenured professor types and badged types, they often are full of it, and rarely called to account.
Why would it surprise anybody that when two such archtypical examples of puffed egos and manifest privilege would bump heads -- regardless of their relative status as a man in his own home and a cop investigating a report of a possible break-in -- it would be anything but ugly?
So, yeah, it is possible to discuss their encounter, and explain it fully, even without reference to race.
Why the racial explanation utterly dominates the discourse about this is, alas, yet another sign that this society is just too obsessed with the whole subject.
I don't think that's necessary to explain what happened. I'm not, at this point, interested in discussing the actual racial aspects of their encounter, or the aftermath.
Because there is a much simpler explanation -- one that might even be true -- which quite fully explains the unpleasantness, the deception, and the bombastic behavior on both of their parts.
Let's review the facts. Well, no, we can't; we don't have the facts. We have some of the facts, and, far as I can tell, they're summarized pretty well here. My short version:
Guy comes home from a trip, with a driver. Front door is jammed, so he goes in through the back door, and then comes back around to try to force the front door open. Neighbor, seeing two guys apparently (and, in fact) trying to force a door open, calls 911 to report it, adding that maybe it's not a burglary because they've got suitcases and might be returning from a trip or something.
Cops are dispatched, and arrive more or less promptly, but after the driver is gone, and the resident is home alone.
So far, everybody agrees on that, more or less.
The next part is unclear, to me, and not just because there's two stories.
According to the police report, the cop -- Crowley -- asks Gates to step outside. This means to me that, at least according to the police, Gates was inside the house, and suggests that Crowley was outside when he was doing the asking. Okay.
According to Gates, Wikipedia says that "when the officer asked for ID, Gates replied he had to get it inside, and then officer Crowley followed him into his home without permission." Which suggests that Gates was outside his house when asked for the ID.
I'm sensing some idiocy here. (I think both the cops and Gates are lying, actually, and each is doing so against their own best interests.) But let's, for the sake of argument, go with this: Gates is inside his house when there's a knock on the door, and there's a cop there, asking him for ID. He agrees to provide it, and leaves the door open as he goes to get it; he does, and it makes clear to the cop that this is the guy who lives there, and that there's no reason for any further investigation.
Up to this point -- assuming that all that's just what happened, and nothing more is -- nobody's done anything wrong, although at least arguably Gates has been stupid by not locking the door.
Let's try that again, this time with a bit more sense. There's a knock on the door, and Gates answers it -- why not? -- to find a cop there, demanding ID from the person inside the house. Now, he's in his home (provided to him by the U, but it's his home), and he's got every right to say, "No, thank you; go away, please," and, leaving the door locked behind him, go to bed, but he doesn't.
Let's let him be reasonably cooperative. "Sure. I'll get my ID." He does, holds it up to the door; the cop reads it, and we're at about the same place.
Except, of course, that didn't happen. Both men tried to pull rank, and I'm guessing that both of them did it for precisely the wrong reason -- as they're both members of classes of people who often both see themselves as beleaguered and oppressed, while both live a life of almost preposterous privilege, often seeing it as their due.
Gates is a tenured professor, and Crowley's a cop. Both are surrounded by colleagues and sycophants -- fellow tenured types and students in one case; other badged types, badge bunnies, and badgelickers in the other -- who will, even without request, leap to the unfounded and often utterly preposterous conclusion that they did the right thing simply because of who they are, and both have been inculcated to believe that they have earned special respect from all they encounter because of the status that they have achieved. Both are used to having their word taken as holy writ, no matter whether or not they happen to be full of it -- and, in the case of both tenured professor types and badged types, they often are full of it, and rarely called to account.
Why would it surprise anybody that when two such archtypical examples of puffed egos and manifest privilege would bump heads -- regardless of their relative status as a man in his own home and a cop investigating a report of a possible break-in -- it would be anything but ugly?
So, yeah, it is possible to discuss their encounter, and explain it fully, even without reference to race.
Why the racial explanation utterly dominates the discourse about this is, alas, yet another sign that this society is just too obsessed with the whole subject.
6 Comments
Leave a comment
.
Great post, Mark.
Sorry, that's Joel.
I think this is a great article, and I agree that class and status plays a larger and probably more dominant role than race in many cases. But I do think that "our society" being "obsessed" with race is a euphamism for "minority racial groups are obsessed with race." Perhaps one can say the media proliferates stories where someone "pulls the race card," but because race is a sensitive subject for many minorities, they are the ones tagged with the title of "obsessed."
"White guys don't talk about/harp on their race, so why do you?" This is not a very fair or objective position to have, but a lot of people take it nonetheless. Believe it or not, a lot of minorities still encounter racism at one point or another during their lives. Not this-guy-cut-me-off-so-he-must-be-racist 'racism', but real, honest-to-goodness, call-a-spade-a-spade racial slurs, physical attacks and racial profiling.
There are some people who instantly associate other's bad behavior with discrimination, who have no reason to do so. But we should keep our minds open that perhaps (1) that person has become sensitive to the topic because of past experiences and (2) that person is not a reflection of a whole group's "obsession" with race.
I really don't think obsessed is a fair term, because it marginalizes those people with real racial discrimination claims, and makes them feel like a burden for even bringing it up. Thanks for the article, Joel. By not really bringing up race, you may have made it easier to address objectively.
You're kinda sorta welcome, but -- and I mean this as nicely as I can, which isn't very -- you're not welcome to put words in my mouth and then argue with them. I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion of this country's obsession with race at the moment -- been there, done that, and I might do it again sometime, but not right now -- because I said, and meant, that it is the whole country that's obsessed with the issue, and not just what are euphemistically called "minorities." I may be wrong, although I'm hardly without grounds or company in that assertion -- but, no shit: I said what I meant and I meant what I said.
Fair enough- I genuinely apologize for what you read as me putting words in your mouth. I thought I was clear in referencing "many people" and "some," but maybe I should have said, "Many People use this as a euphamism." Although, I don't think that would have made a difference to you. Listen, I'm not trying to drag you into talking about race, since you are obviously SO Over talking about it...geez. Sounds like you have spent HOURS researching the country's racial issues. You must be tired!
Here is the thought process I wanted to provoke: what is "too obsessed?"
When people say the country is "too obsessed," it's generally about things that we believe should be nonissues. Things we don't feel should be talked about so much. Like Paris Hilton's BFF, Britney Spear's meltdown or Michael Jackson's addiction to sleeping pills. No one says this country is too obsessed with terrorism, health care, or amber alerts. Society is obsessed with any controversy, yes. Race is an issue that breeds controversy. But it is also an issue. Not a nonissue. The fact that it comes up on tv more than once a year, people write books about it and others make a living from it, doesn't make for "yet another sign that this society is just too obsessed with the whole subject," in my opinion (and I'm hardly without grounds or company in that assertion, but who gives a shit).
The racial aspect dominates the discourse here, because that's how the discourse started. A racial profiling claim was made, remember? I'm not saying it was a valid claim-- who knows-- but the fact that it was investigated and nationally covered is hardly obsessive. It means perhaps instead that society is obsessed with this local controversy or the fact that the president talked about it. Saying that we're too obsessed with the "entire subject" is advocating that race shouldn't be an issue. That it shouldn't come up so much. That's a sweet concept, but it's not reality. Race is very often an issue. More often, in fact, than the 2 times a year television asks you to think about it. I, like you and many others, think this story lacks any factual support for so many people to jump on any side of a bandwagon. So be dismissive about THIS charge for lack of facts and what may be all around stupidity on both parts. But don't encourage that we be dismissive about the entire subject. Because sometimes, it really matters.
You're doing it again. Sigh. And you're wrong, again -- in fact, there are people who say that this country is too obsessed with terrorism, for example. You could read Bruce Schneier, for one (and he's hardly alone, and he's not entirely wrong).
There are people -- and you're apparently one of them -- who have got a subject that they're fascinated with. That's okay; I've got a few of my own -- firearms, civil rights, the connection between the two, contract bridge, the writing of Samuel Clemens and Robert Heinlein, Open Source software, the formative effects of early client/patient populations on psychotherapists' theories about human nature (Freud vs. Rogers, say), the nature of parody -- you know: the usual.
What isn't okay is to walk into a discussion where the host of it -- that's me -- is deliberately trying to discuss another issue and drag the discussion, kicking and screaming, back to your particular subject of interest, as though that's the only one in the world that anybody ought to be interested in or discuss. It damn well isn't, and that's just what you're doing, and have been doing here, immediately after your cutesy little bit of insincere, buttery praise that you opened here with, before immediately trying to hijack the discussion back to your pet topic.
Stop it.
There's lots of places and lots of folks who will be more than happy to accommodate your desire to discuss the Gates/Crowley thing in terms of race. And that's utterly fine. Hell, for all I know -- or care -- there may even be some postings on Windypundit where Mark is up for that discussion -- go there, and have those discussions with them.
Yeah, I am so over that. You're not, that's fine; go be not so over that somewhere else. Ghu knows, you got plenty of places to do that. This just isn't one of them.
Bye.