This piece was originally written on June 2nd.
“I understand that I will never understand, however, I stand with you.”
This statement has been shared rampantly in response to recent events. It has likely gained a lot of popularity due to its seemingly unifying nature. It also shows support for a community that is hurting in light of a recent tragedy. The overwhelming support for justice in response to the alleged murder of George Floyd is wonderful to see. However, there is a lot of rhetoric being distributed. I choose to examine the “I understand that I will never understand, however, I stand with you” line because it reminds me of an important conversation about the knowledge I once listened to.
This popular statement carries an important implication. “I understand” means I know the African American community has different life experiences because of the color of their skin. “that I will never understand” means I will never know how hard these negative life experiences are because I do not experience them personally. “However I stand with you” means despite the fact that I can not relate or even understand you, I will support you in your quest for justice. The important clause of the three is the second one.
The implication of the second clause is that we can not understand things unless we experience them. This is the central claim of the philosophy of Empiricism. Empiricism is defined as a theory that all knowledge originates in experience by Merriam Webster. I argue that very few people actually hold this theory to be true. We can reason to understand and know certain things that we have never experienced. For example, I have never experienced a global nuclear apocalypse. In fact, nobody has ever experienced a global nuclear apocalypse. In spite of the fact that a global nuclear apocalypse has never occurred, I believe that it is evident that it would be a bad thing. I can reason the many pains and horrors that would occur if a global nuclear apocalypse actually occurred. Similarly, we can reason the many pains and hardships those who encounter racism and discrimination must endure.
At this time, you may be wondering about the significance of my objection to Empiricism. If we must experience events in order to understand them, then we will never be able to understand each other. Another premise, that most will agree with, is that we must understand a problem before we can solve it. If we add this premise to the previous one we limit those who can solve the problem of racism and police brutality to those who experienced it. The logic being:
Premise 1: I need to understand a problem in order to solve it.
Premise 2: If I experience the problem, then I can solve it. In logic, Premise 2 can also be rewritten as If I do not experience the problem, then I can not solve it. Therefore, the claim “I understand that I will never understand, however, I stand with you” is actually a divisive claim. This kind of thinking will only further divide us. I believe the way forward is to unite. In order to unite we must be able to have substantive conversations about how to ensure that everyone is treated equally. Promoting ignorance and sharing trendy hashtags fails to address actual issues.
Hidden behind hashtags, there are real ideas about how to fix police brutality. One way to combat police brutality is passing more restrictive laws about when Police officers are justified in using force. Clearly, the police officer involved in the death of George Floyd was not justified in his use of force. Unfortunately, laws don’t always prevent people from breaking them. When people choose to break laws we must ensure they are prosecuted.
The officer charged with murdering George Floyd had numerous previous complaints filed against him. How was an individual with that history still on the police force? There is one group that has a history of protecting individuals by using the power of a larger group. Unions in the United States were originally founded to promote workers' rights. Eventually, unions were widely successful at achieving more workers' rights and better working conditions. Unions gain power through their members. The more members they have, the more power they have.
Unfortunately, most unions have the power to protect individuals by using the power of the group. Unions can make it harder to fire individuals who deserve to be fired. There are many Police Unions across the United States. The Minneapolis Police Department is one of the many police departments that have a union. Like any job, I believe it would be easier to remove a rule or law-breaking officer if there was not a union. I understand that the idea of removing unions may be an uncomfortable thing to hear because of their history with this country. However, it seems like the best place to start is to question the institutions that are designed to protect these individuals.
All opinions expressed within the contents of this article reflect the views and values of the author, not Politics NOW.
Comments