![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The art of communication
Wednesday, 13 August 2014 01:36 pmNight 3! Peaceful gatherings at a church and the burnt-out QT was relatively quiet, even after cops lined up in riot gear and begin issuing orders to disperse. They seemed more laid back, and the outcry from the crowd felt almost perfunctory. In a way, it was almost like a polite disagreement over who got the pay the check. "No, no no no - I'll be the bigger man here." If that makes any sense.
And then, according to reports, a woman was shot in a drive-by after midnight. And then, as I heard it, "four men in ski masks fired into the crowd", and one was shot by officers. These incidents strike some as highly dubious:
A friend in the area who knows many of the local police officers and city officials is dismayed by what she sees as a rush to judgment. I mention her ties because context seems so very important when it comes to Ferguson right now. What's happening there is much more complex, she says, than everyone is insisting, but I'm not sure what she means by that - region-wide racial tensions boiling over after some high-profile incidents seems complex enough, to me.
The black community is clearly outraged at yet another young man shot down and his death excused before he's even in the ground; they're saying exactly that and pretty loudly. They perceive a racial bias in the town's government and police force, both of which are overwhelmingly white, and which seems borne out in the statistics for police stops and arrests (going around in articles - I'll try to dig it up later today). And if I understand the economic discussions, there's a wide economic gap between the town's black majority and its white gentrifiers. And then you have the anger of the larger metropolitan area: St. Louis is so segregated, the BBC wrote about the street that draws the line between black and white.
And then the 'stand your ground' killings of Trayvon Martin by an overzealous white vigilante for the crime of walking home, and of Jordan Davis by a white man who thought his stereo was too loud, both still recent enough to sting. The verdict in the killing of Renisha McBride, killed for knocking on a door to ask for help, just came out and made headlines for how badly the AP managed to humanize the white murderer while dehumanizing his victim. And the police killings of John Crawford for the crime of picking up a toy gun in the toy section of Walmart, and Eric Garner for selling illegal cigarettes (though witnesses dispute this, and the officer has been investigated for false arrest before), are still in the news.
Meanwhile, white guys all over Texas are walking into department stores and coffee shops armed to the teeth to make a point, a white rancher and his buddies pointed arms at federal agents and faces no charges, a white doctor walked into an airport with an assault rifle and charges were dropped, a white teen in Aurora, CO, where very recently, a heavily armed man walked into a theatre and started shooting, not only took a stroll around town flaunting his weaponry, but argued with police, refused to show his ID and refused to put down his weapon. But when reporter Matt Pearce quotes a black victim of police brutality...
Like I said, pretty complex all on its own.
Tangent!
On Monday morning, two women were interviewed in front of the burnt-out QT. Both wanted to convey how badly the looting affects the local community, but only one succeeded. Before I go further, let me be clear: I am not judging either woman, or questioning sincerity or motives, or casting snark. I'm simply holding up the wording and looking at what's communicated. And yes, I am pointing out the race of each woman, because race is very much an issue in these events, but more to this particular point, I think it's also an issue in how each woman communicated her message.
White woman standing at the burnt-out QT in Ferguson after the riots (paraphrased): I walk everywhere - I walk when I need to get a snack for the kids, we go out for walks, and so do a lot of people around here. What are we going to do now? Now I'm stuck at home.
Her message is full of I's. Despite including 'a lot of people around here', her message is one of personal inconvenience. What she's conveying is, This is an inconvenience to me. It was an off-the-cuff statement, the reporter didn't give her much time, and, hey, without the QT, maybe she hadn't had her coffee. In any case, not only did she not come across as well as she could have, she didn't come across well at all. She came across as a white lady whining about how the looting inconvenienced her personally, without regard for the context (Mike Brown's killing, the affected community).
I recognize the conversational tactic, putting a thing it in personal terms to show how it affects you personally, so it's easier to explain and demonstrate that impact, because it's one I use often. But it backfires here and comes across as self-interest.
Black woman standing at the burnt-out QT in Ferguson after the riots (paraphrased): My husband and I have lived here for 20 years, and shop on this street all the time. This is our neighborhood. I know one of the kids that works here - what is she going to do now? This [looting] doesn't represent who we are as a community. I'm sure the police will investigate this, and unfortunately, that takes time. I am angry that a young man lost his life, but I don't want to tear things apart for everyone else.
Her message is full of we's. Out of the gate, she not only points to the community, but herself as part of it, and then slams it home with a direct 'This is our neighborhood'. She points to a very specific person besides herself, and phrases her concern as concern for that other person. When she does talk about herself and how she's affected, it's in relationship to the killing - that she's affected by the more serious incident, and by sympathy rather than personal grievance - and even there, she turns it to 'everyone else'.
She's good. She's damn good. True, her statement sounded a bit rehearsed, and she had plenty of time to give a longer statement. But still, she came across as a civic-minded citizen concerned for her community and for justice. The difference between the two was so powerful that I stopped and wondered if there was an inherent difference in the I/we language balance between the races. But mostly, I thought that if she's not writing someone's speeches, her talents are going to waste.
[Speaking of communications: I'm half-asleep, so any social awkwardness, "That sounds rude!", etc., is down to that. When I tag and clean-up, I'll try to sand down any rough edges.]
And then, according to reports, a woman was shot in a drive-by after midnight. And then, as I heard it, "four men in ski masks fired into the crowd", and one was shot by officers. These incidents strike some as highly dubious:
People also need to understand that the young men wearing "masks" on their faces started doing that after police started using tear gas.
Antonio French (@AntonioFrench) August 13, 2014
Local Tv is blacked out. No fly zone. Media locked out. Then a random drive by shooting happens. Yeah.
DarkSkintDostoyevsky (@daniecal) August 13, 2014
But how are they driving ANYWHERE if the streets are blocked off? This is why they wanted media out.Despite stating earlier that they would release the officer's name by yesterday, police have decided it was too dangerous to name him. They have said, however, that he suffered facial injuries. Some were predicting early that this would be another Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager confronted and killed by an armed adult and then painted not only as a thug, but as the aggressor; this news release and the police department's refusal to release Mike Brown's autopsy until toxicology reports come back are fanning those fears.
ronnieNotch (@RonnieNotch) August 13, 2014
Don't believe the media propaganda.
They're going to run toxicology tests to find some kind of marijuana to muddy Michael Brown's reputation, the same way they did with every other innocent black life that's taken by the police. Despite this soon to be college student having a reputation for being fun-loving and never a trouble-maker.
They're going to drag it out so that the dust settles and the cop who did this can continue working in a few months.
They will continue to treat the accounts of the police as the "official word", even though every eye witness says the exact opposite.
Do NOT believe the media propaganda. An innocent young black man was murdered in cold blood. And the murderer(s) will be protected by our "justice" system. (Derrick Jaxn, 11 August 2014
A friend in the area who knows many of the local police officers and city officials is dismayed by what she sees as a rush to judgment. I mention her ties because context seems so very important when it comes to Ferguson right now. What's happening there is much more complex, she says, than everyone is insisting, but I'm not sure what she means by that - region-wide racial tensions boiling over after some high-profile incidents seems complex enough, to me.
The black community is clearly outraged at yet another young man shot down and his death excused before he's even in the ground; they're saying exactly that and pretty loudly. They perceive a racial bias in the town's government and police force, both of which are overwhelmingly white, and which seems borne out in the statistics for police stops and arrests (going around in articles - I'll try to dig it up later today). And if I understand the economic discussions, there's a wide economic gap between the town's black majority and its white gentrifiers. And then you have the anger of the larger metropolitan area: St. Louis is so segregated, the BBC wrote about the street that draws the line between black and white.
And then the 'stand your ground' killings of Trayvon Martin by an overzealous white vigilante for the crime of walking home, and of Jordan Davis by a white man who thought his stereo was too loud, both still recent enough to sting. The verdict in the killing of Renisha McBride, killed for knocking on a door to ask for help, just came out and made headlines for how badly the AP managed to humanize the white murderer while dehumanizing his victim. And the police killings of John Crawford for the crime of picking up a toy gun in the toy section of Walmart, and Eric Garner for selling illegal cigarettes (though witnesses dispute this, and the officer has been investigated for false arrest before), are still in the news.
Meanwhile, white guys all over Texas are walking into department stores and coffee shops armed to the teeth to make a point, a white rancher and his buddies pointed arms at federal agents and faces no charges, a white doctor walked into an airport with an assault rifle and charges were dropped, a white teen in Aurora, CO, where very recently, a heavily armed man walked into a theatre and started shooting, not only took a stroll around town flaunting his weaponry, but argued with police, refused to show his ID and refused to put down his weapon. But when reporter Matt Pearce quotes a black victim of police brutality...
"I got smacked in the head with a flashlight because I didn't say, 'Yes, sir.'"...the responses are, "Then do what you're told. That's what I would tell my son," and "got to have good manners. Yes sir, no sir" [sic]. They're the usual responses, responses that imply someone has the right to beat you for failing to be polite enough. Not them - these kinds of statements always come from folks who'd raise fifteen kinds of hell if a police officer was less than courteous to them - but you.
He added, "I was 14 years old."
http://t.co/VjJlU4Y2Fe— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) August 13, 2014
Like I said, pretty complex all on its own.
Tangent!
On Monday morning, two women were interviewed in front of the burnt-out QT. Both wanted to convey how badly the looting affects the local community, but only one succeeded. Before I go further, let me be clear: I am not judging either woman, or questioning sincerity or motives, or casting snark. I'm simply holding up the wording and looking at what's communicated. And yes, I am pointing out the race of each woman, because race is very much an issue in these events, but more to this particular point, I think it's also an issue in how each woman communicated her message.
White woman standing at the burnt-out QT in Ferguson after the riots (paraphrased): I walk everywhere - I walk when I need to get a snack for the kids, we go out for walks, and so do a lot of people around here. What are we going to do now? Now I'm stuck at home.
Her message is full of I's. Despite including 'a lot of people around here', her message is one of personal inconvenience. What she's conveying is, This is an inconvenience to me. It was an off-the-cuff statement, the reporter didn't give her much time, and, hey, without the QT, maybe she hadn't had her coffee. In any case, not only did she not come across as well as she could have, she didn't come across well at all. She came across as a white lady whining about how the looting inconvenienced her personally, without regard for the context (Mike Brown's killing, the affected community).
I recognize the conversational tactic, putting a thing it in personal terms to show how it affects you personally, so it's easier to explain and demonstrate that impact, because it's one I use often. But it backfires here and comes across as self-interest.
Black woman standing at the burnt-out QT in Ferguson after the riots (paraphrased): My husband and I have lived here for 20 years, and shop on this street all the time. This is our neighborhood. I know one of the kids that works here - what is she going to do now? This [looting] doesn't represent who we are as a community. I'm sure the police will investigate this, and unfortunately, that takes time. I am angry that a young man lost his life, but I don't want to tear things apart for everyone else.
Her message is full of we's. Out of the gate, she not only points to the community, but herself as part of it, and then slams it home with a direct 'This is our neighborhood'. She points to a very specific person besides herself, and phrases her concern as concern for that other person. When she does talk about herself and how she's affected, it's in relationship to the killing - that she's affected by the more serious incident, and by sympathy rather than personal grievance - and even there, she turns it to 'everyone else'.
She's good. She's damn good. True, her statement sounded a bit rehearsed, and she had plenty of time to give a longer statement. But still, she came across as a civic-minded citizen concerned for her community and for justice. The difference between the two was so powerful that I stopped and wondered if there was an inherent difference in the I/we language balance between the races. But mostly, I thought that if she's not writing someone's speeches, her talents are going to waste.
[Speaking of communications: I'm half-asleep, so any social awkwardness, "That sounds rude!", etc., is down to that. When I tag and clean-up, I'll try to sand down any rough edges.]