The initial media reaction to the death of Freddie Gray
was to tie it to other recent episodes of white police officers accused of
killing young black men.
But that narrative soon changed in the wake of rioting and
acknowledgment that the facts were not supportive of the initial account.
Baltimore is a city almost two-thirds black with a black
mayor, police commissioner, head prosecutor and majority council (and three of
the six police officers suspected – now charged – with involvement in Gray’s
arrest and death are, themselves, black).
Immediately following the outbreak of violence, Baltimore’s
leadership blasted young black rioters as criminals and thugs - labels which
plainly fit as TV viewers across the nation would concur.
But then, under the circumstances, something odd occurred. The very people in charge of the city’s
government changed their tune the following day. Now, the looters, property destroyers and
arsonists were described as “misguided”.
What happened?
Was the altered tone the result of pressure for racial
unity? Was it disloyal to suggest the
young residents of some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods weren’t responsible
for their own conduct? That they shouldn’t
be accused of knowing right from wrong?
The warm greeting given by the mayor to notorious
race-baiter Al Sharpton and the City Council’s embrace of professed help by
criminal black gangs (Bloods and Crips) would strongly suggest that’s exactly
what happened.
So if racial animosity wasn’t the real reason for
Baltimore’s upheaval, what was?
Riots are caused by anger. They solve nothing, of course, and usually
result in harm for the lives of the rioters and their neighborhoods. (Does the expression “cutting off one’s nose
to spite one’s face” come to mind?)
Leave aside participants who aren’t venting hostility
but, rather, taking advantage of opportunities to steal, what were the rioters
angry about? Or, for that matter, the
non-violent protesters?
Yes, a young man died in police custody – a fellow who’d
had frequent contact with authorities as a small time drug dealer. That death seems a doubtful explanation, too,
when one considers that the killing of young black men by others is a far too
common event in Baltimore (once known as the nation’s murder capital).
Rioters who destroy are doing so out of hopelessness. Rioters do not intend to make sense or convey
a message because, if the actions were intelligent, their self- defeating
nature would be obvious. Instead, the
acts of destruction are the end. From a
perverse perspective, the rioters have accomplished something and that makes
them happy, even fulfilled.
The Baltimore leadership does not understand – and,
hence, has not a clue - what needs to
be done. In fact, the anger generated is
their responsibility to confront.
However, that will not happen. The convenient scapegoat will be the police
(of whatever color). But the police didn’t
create the problem of Baltimore’s predominantly black poor.
Alas, precious few black leaders understand – or will
acknowledge – that the liberal bromides promised by the Great Society have
failed and, in fact, have worsened life in impoverished communities across the
country.
The entitlement society has corrupted character. Children born out of wedlock are usually
deprived of the civilizing influence of two parents in the home. Society excuses bad behavior and thereby saps
the sense of personal responsibility.
And don’t forget the sorry shape of inner city schools.
In effect, liberal politicians have promoted harmful
policies and have refused to condemn self-destructive behavior.
The result has been cities populated by people without
hope who are susceptible to the appeal of riotous behavior. Race has little, if anything, to do with it.
