Hello. I appreciate your response to my article. However, I would like to disagree that this article was written in a “wrong mindset”.
First off, I am confused on what allegations that are “damn wrong”. First, I’ll respond to the article that you posted. The author argues that the event was a horrible accident because the probability of the ricocheted bullet hitting the wall is low. Certainly, while it is certainly a “tragic accident”, it does not mean that Peter Liang should not be held accountable for his actions. He failed to perform CPR or any emergency procedures. Even if he did not intentionally kill Akai Gurley, it’s undeniable that Liang should receive punishment for shooting and killing an unarmed black man. I acknowledge that the protesters are also offering their condolences to the family of Akai Gurley, but I am a little confused if those apologies are sufficient to mitigate (1) the undermining of that apology through the protests in support of Peter Liang and (2) as I have said in my original piece: the overall anti-black nature of the protests. Asking for “Justice for Peter Liang” seems quite disrespectful to the dead man that the protesters are mourning.
You say that you are not seeking any white privileges, but demand consistency. I am also confused on what that consistency is. Because previous cops have been let off, they should be consistent and drop charges against Peter Liang? Fairness? Peter Liang is a scapegoat, yes but to say that he is a scapegoat for white America to wash their hands of blood does not mean he should not be held accountable. I ask you: where were the protesters when Eric Garner was killed? When Sandra Bland was found dead in her jail cell? Where the calls for justice? I am very concerned that internal inconsistency of the protests’ calls for justice actively undermines the larger struggle against institutionalized racism. He killed someone, and he should be held accountable. Peter Liang is both a victim and a victimizer. He and Akai Gurley are not victims in the same way.
Lastly, on “unite the people”. I think I have made it very clear that “each of the [communities] has its [own] issue[s] to take care of” in my analysis of the multiplicity of ways that racism manifests. What you ignore is that when fighting for those issues, you make sure the resolving of those issues are not also implicated advancing other forms of violence. Just as fighting anti-Asian racism must not involve the putting down of LGBTQI individuals or of women, it also must involve anti-blackness or an ignorance of our settler identities. I don’t think I have ever made a POC vs. white claim — it’s important to have white allies, I think, in the fight against white America. I think that what I said about self-reflexivity applies here. White people need to understand the different ways that they are implicated in all sorts of violence, and to move beyond and combat those forms of violence. Coalitional work does not preclude anyone, but it must always be a process of activity, self-realization, and reflexivity.
Thanks for your response, but I would like to disagree.