SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Tangled Roots and Bitter Fruit: What Ferguson and New York Can Teach the Food Movement
Facing up to the complex issues of race, fear, and inequality is at the vital center of all efforts to combat injustice
Dec 04, 2014
The public outcry following the decisions of grand juries in Missouri and New York not to indict police officers for the homicide of black men reaches across color lines.
The rage and exasperation in the streets are just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the protests sweeping the country, grief, sadness and disillusion are seeping into the hearts and minds of many people who may not be the target of police violence but who know a miscarriage of justice when they see it--over and over again. There is guilt and fear too, among those who sense the police have gone too far, too many times, and that the widespread militarization of our police forces since 9/11 is making us less, rather than more secure.
"We can't have a just judicial system, or an impartial law enforcement system, or build a sustainable food system on the foundation of an oppressive social and economic system."
In Ferguson Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson used his own fear as his defense in the flawed grand jury proceedings that saved him from indictment. The white policeman based his defense on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1985 decision in Tennessee v. Garner, which states that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." Fear of a "demonic" black man charging through a volley of bullets, he explained, drove him--a veteran police officer--to fire six rounds into the body and then the head of an unarmed, seriously wounded teenager who by different counts was anywhere from ten to thirty feet away and did or did not have his hands up, did or did not charge the officer...
In Staten Island, New York, the use of an illegal chokehold by officer Daniel Pantaleo was determined to be the cause of death for Eric Garner, an unarmed African-American man who was suspected of a misdemeanor (selling loose cigarettes). In this case the events were filmed and are irrefutable: Garner, visible upset at what he considered police harassment had his hands up and was surrounded by four policemen when Pantaleo threw the choke on him from behind, taking him to the ground. Garner's pleas, "I can't breathe... I can't breathe..." went ignored. When he was unconscious, white police officers made no effort to resuscitate him or save his life. While we do not have access to the grand jury proceedings that failed to indict Daniel Pantaleo, it is likely he used the same defense: fear.
Fear is no excuse for murder. But whether one believes their story or not, the policemen's fear is not imaginary. It is the foundational terror of apartheid.
Apartheid in South Africa (1948-1984) was the systemic oppression of the black majority to protect the privileges of the white minority. There are, however, many forms of apartheid. They all require violence and the abuse of civil and human rights. Inherent within apartheid is the minority's fear that they will lose their privilege, exposing them to retaliation and revenge. For apartheid, law enforcement--in the streets and in the courtroom--is supposed to ensure this does not happen.
Comparing our society to apartheid is so repugnant as to be almost incomprehensible... except to the African-American communities suffering from unparalleled and disproportionate levels of violence and incarceration; or to the immigrant communities who pick our crops and process, cook and serve our food, yet have the highest levels of food insecurity in the nation; or to the underserved communities of color whose poor wages, poor schools and poor diet have resulted in an epidemic of diet-related diseases.
Unlike the South African apartheid regime, in the United States there is no official policy sanctioning the separation and oppression of people on the basis of race. But by 2050 people of color will be the majority in this country. If the war on young black men and women and on immigrants continues, and if the widening wealth gap and the "privatization of everything" proceed apace, the uber-privileged minority will indeed have recreated the social and material conditions of apartheid. Unless we all work to stop it, our legal and political institutions will be swept into the project.
The morning after the general prosecutor's late-night announcement a colleague of mine came to our Oakland office to discuss possible research projects. Dr. Amie "Breeze" Harper is a young, accomplished author and blogger. Educated at Dartmouth, she holds advanced degrees from Harvard and the University of California. She is African-American and mother of three young children. We tried to talk about work that would highlight and inform the challenges communities of color face in providing healthy, affordable food for those that need it most. We tried, but the murder of young black men by the police in Ferguson and Oakland kept invading our thoughts. "I just keep thinking about my father, my brother and my son," she said, gazing off, her voice dropping slightly. I choked up, overcome with sadness and anger.
We both know what many food justice activists have felt for a long time--that all the organic carrots and farmers markets in the world are not going to end hunger unless we also end racism. Not just the racism inherent to our food system, but its pervasiveness in the food movement itself.
As a person of mixed heritage I know that racism has tangled roots: white privilege, internalized oppression, violence, fear, guilt, grief. I also know that while it is structural, it is also visceral, bound up in our psyche and our emotions, hard to get at and painful to work through. This is why many people in the food movement choose not to address it. They are afraid that addressing racism is just too hard, too complicated and too messy. They're afraid that bringing up the issues of oppression and privilege will end up dividing the movement rather than strengthening it. They're afraid. They are also mistaken.
The bitter fruit of Ferguson and New York should remind all those committed to social change that dismantling racism isn't optional. Neither is it work that takes us away from other more important tasks. We can't have a just judicial system, or an impartial law enforcement system, or build a sustainable food system on the foundation of an oppressive social and economic system.
Dismantling racism isn't extra work. It is the work.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Eric Holt-Gimenez
Eric Holt-Gimenez, Ph.D. is a food system researcher and agroecologist. He is the Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy. His most recent books are: "Can We Feed the World Without Destroying It?" (2019), and "A Foodie's Guide to Capitalism: Understanding the Political Economy of What We Eat" (2017).
The public outcry following the decisions of grand juries in Missouri and New York not to indict police officers for the homicide of black men reaches across color lines.
The rage and exasperation in the streets are just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the protests sweeping the country, grief, sadness and disillusion are seeping into the hearts and minds of many people who may not be the target of police violence but who know a miscarriage of justice when they see it--over and over again. There is guilt and fear too, among those who sense the police have gone too far, too many times, and that the widespread militarization of our police forces since 9/11 is making us less, rather than more secure.
"We can't have a just judicial system, or an impartial law enforcement system, or build a sustainable food system on the foundation of an oppressive social and economic system."
In Ferguson Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson used his own fear as his defense in the flawed grand jury proceedings that saved him from indictment. The white policeman based his defense on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1985 decision in Tennessee v. Garner, which states that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." Fear of a "demonic" black man charging through a volley of bullets, he explained, drove him--a veteran police officer--to fire six rounds into the body and then the head of an unarmed, seriously wounded teenager who by different counts was anywhere from ten to thirty feet away and did or did not have his hands up, did or did not charge the officer...
In Staten Island, New York, the use of an illegal chokehold by officer Daniel Pantaleo was determined to be the cause of death for Eric Garner, an unarmed African-American man who was suspected of a misdemeanor (selling loose cigarettes). In this case the events were filmed and are irrefutable: Garner, visible upset at what he considered police harassment had his hands up and was surrounded by four policemen when Pantaleo threw the choke on him from behind, taking him to the ground. Garner's pleas, "I can't breathe... I can't breathe..." went ignored. When he was unconscious, white police officers made no effort to resuscitate him or save his life. While we do not have access to the grand jury proceedings that failed to indict Daniel Pantaleo, it is likely he used the same defense: fear.
Fear is no excuse for murder. But whether one believes their story or not, the policemen's fear is not imaginary. It is the foundational terror of apartheid.
Apartheid in South Africa (1948-1984) was the systemic oppression of the black majority to protect the privileges of the white minority. There are, however, many forms of apartheid. They all require violence and the abuse of civil and human rights. Inherent within apartheid is the minority's fear that they will lose their privilege, exposing them to retaliation and revenge. For apartheid, law enforcement--in the streets and in the courtroom--is supposed to ensure this does not happen.
Comparing our society to apartheid is so repugnant as to be almost incomprehensible... except to the African-American communities suffering from unparalleled and disproportionate levels of violence and incarceration; or to the immigrant communities who pick our crops and process, cook and serve our food, yet have the highest levels of food insecurity in the nation; or to the underserved communities of color whose poor wages, poor schools and poor diet have resulted in an epidemic of diet-related diseases.
Unlike the South African apartheid regime, in the United States there is no official policy sanctioning the separation and oppression of people on the basis of race. But by 2050 people of color will be the majority in this country. If the war on young black men and women and on immigrants continues, and if the widening wealth gap and the "privatization of everything" proceed apace, the uber-privileged minority will indeed have recreated the social and material conditions of apartheid. Unless we all work to stop it, our legal and political institutions will be swept into the project.
The morning after the general prosecutor's late-night announcement a colleague of mine came to our Oakland office to discuss possible research projects. Dr. Amie "Breeze" Harper is a young, accomplished author and blogger. Educated at Dartmouth, she holds advanced degrees from Harvard and the University of California. She is African-American and mother of three young children. We tried to talk about work that would highlight and inform the challenges communities of color face in providing healthy, affordable food for those that need it most. We tried, but the murder of young black men by the police in Ferguson and Oakland kept invading our thoughts. "I just keep thinking about my father, my brother and my son," she said, gazing off, her voice dropping slightly. I choked up, overcome with sadness and anger.
We both know what many food justice activists have felt for a long time--that all the organic carrots and farmers markets in the world are not going to end hunger unless we also end racism. Not just the racism inherent to our food system, but its pervasiveness in the food movement itself.
As a person of mixed heritage I know that racism has tangled roots: white privilege, internalized oppression, violence, fear, guilt, grief. I also know that while it is structural, it is also visceral, bound up in our psyche and our emotions, hard to get at and painful to work through. This is why many people in the food movement choose not to address it. They are afraid that addressing racism is just too hard, too complicated and too messy. They're afraid that bringing up the issues of oppression and privilege will end up dividing the movement rather than strengthening it. They're afraid. They are also mistaken.
The bitter fruit of Ferguson and New York should remind all those committed to social change that dismantling racism isn't optional. Neither is it work that takes us away from other more important tasks. We can't have a just judicial system, or an impartial law enforcement system, or build a sustainable food system on the foundation of an oppressive social and economic system.
Dismantling racism isn't extra work. It is the work.
Eric Holt-Gimenez
Eric Holt-Gimenez, Ph.D. is a food system researcher and agroecologist. He is the Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy. His most recent books are: "Can We Feed the World Without Destroying It?" (2019), and "A Foodie's Guide to Capitalism: Understanding the Political Economy of What We Eat" (2017).
The public outcry following the decisions of grand juries in Missouri and New York not to indict police officers for the homicide of black men reaches across color lines.
The rage and exasperation in the streets are just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the protests sweeping the country, grief, sadness and disillusion are seeping into the hearts and minds of many people who may not be the target of police violence but who know a miscarriage of justice when they see it--over and over again. There is guilt and fear too, among those who sense the police have gone too far, too many times, and that the widespread militarization of our police forces since 9/11 is making us less, rather than more secure.
"We can't have a just judicial system, or an impartial law enforcement system, or build a sustainable food system on the foundation of an oppressive social and economic system."
In Ferguson Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson used his own fear as his defense in the flawed grand jury proceedings that saved him from indictment. The white policeman based his defense on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1985 decision in Tennessee v. Garner, which states that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." Fear of a "demonic" black man charging through a volley of bullets, he explained, drove him--a veteran police officer--to fire six rounds into the body and then the head of an unarmed, seriously wounded teenager who by different counts was anywhere from ten to thirty feet away and did or did not have his hands up, did or did not charge the officer...
In Staten Island, New York, the use of an illegal chokehold by officer Daniel Pantaleo was determined to be the cause of death for Eric Garner, an unarmed African-American man who was suspected of a misdemeanor (selling loose cigarettes). In this case the events were filmed and are irrefutable: Garner, visible upset at what he considered police harassment had his hands up and was surrounded by four policemen when Pantaleo threw the choke on him from behind, taking him to the ground. Garner's pleas, "I can't breathe... I can't breathe..." went ignored. When he was unconscious, white police officers made no effort to resuscitate him or save his life. While we do not have access to the grand jury proceedings that failed to indict Daniel Pantaleo, it is likely he used the same defense: fear.
Fear is no excuse for murder. But whether one believes their story or not, the policemen's fear is not imaginary. It is the foundational terror of apartheid.
Apartheid in South Africa (1948-1984) was the systemic oppression of the black majority to protect the privileges of the white minority. There are, however, many forms of apartheid. They all require violence and the abuse of civil and human rights. Inherent within apartheid is the minority's fear that they will lose their privilege, exposing them to retaliation and revenge. For apartheid, law enforcement--in the streets and in the courtroom--is supposed to ensure this does not happen.
Comparing our society to apartheid is so repugnant as to be almost incomprehensible... except to the African-American communities suffering from unparalleled and disproportionate levels of violence and incarceration; or to the immigrant communities who pick our crops and process, cook and serve our food, yet have the highest levels of food insecurity in the nation; or to the underserved communities of color whose poor wages, poor schools and poor diet have resulted in an epidemic of diet-related diseases.
Unlike the South African apartheid regime, in the United States there is no official policy sanctioning the separation and oppression of people on the basis of race. But by 2050 people of color will be the majority in this country. If the war on young black men and women and on immigrants continues, and if the widening wealth gap and the "privatization of everything" proceed apace, the uber-privileged minority will indeed have recreated the social and material conditions of apartheid. Unless we all work to stop it, our legal and political institutions will be swept into the project.
The morning after the general prosecutor's late-night announcement a colleague of mine came to our Oakland office to discuss possible research projects. Dr. Amie "Breeze" Harper is a young, accomplished author and blogger. Educated at Dartmouth, she holds advanced degrees from Harvard and the University of California. She is African-American and mother of three young children. We tried to talk about work that would highlight and inform the challenges communities of color face in providing healthy, affordable food for those that need it most. We tried, but the murder of young black men by the police in Ferguson and Oakland kept invading our thoughts. "I just keep thinking about my father, my brother and my son," she said, gazing off, her voice dropping slightly. I choked up, overcome with sadness and anger.
We both know what many food justice activists have felt for a long time--that all the organic carrots and farmers markets in the world are not going to end hunger unless we also end racism. Not just the racism inherent to our food system, but its pervasiveness in the food movement itself.
As a person of mixed heritage I know that racism has tangled roots: white privilege, internalized oppression, violence, fear, guilt, grief. I also know that while it is structural, it is also visceral, bound up in our psyche and our emotions, hard to get at and painful to work through. This is why many people in the food movement choose not to address it. They are afraid that addressing racism is just too hard, too complicated and too messy. They're afraid that bringing up the issues of oppression and privilege will end up dividing the movement rather than strengthening it. They're afraid. They are also mistaken.
The bitter fruit of Ferguson and New York should remind all those committed to social change that dismantling racism isn't optional. Neither is it work that takes us away from other more important tasks. We can't have a just judicial system, or an impartial law enforcement system, or build a sustainable food system on the foundation of an oppressive social and economic system.
Dismantling racism isn't extra work. It is the work.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.