SayHerName: Sandra Bland

On July 10, 2015, a Waller County, Texas police officer name Brian Encinia set in motion events that tragically, needlessly interrupted Sandra Bland's life. Bland had returned to Texas to accept a new job at her alma mater, Prairie View A&M University in Texas, more than 1,000 miles from her home in the Chicago suburb of Naperville, Illinois. Sandra Bland had graduated from the historically black college in 2009 and was returning there as a student ambassador, according to her family. Three days later on July 13, 2015, Sandra Bland was "found dead" in her jail cell, without the possibility of resuscitation.

Officer Encinia stopped Ms. Bland, so he later claimed, because she failed to signal while changing lane. This was information he felt she had no right to ask for or to know, until he was good and ready to reveal it, regardless. I have seen thousands of people in my lifetime change lanes without signaling or while signaling and have yet to meet one who was stopped by police for said violation--somebody out there may know one or two or be one of the few. But based on the seemingly doctored footage of the encounter between Ms. Bland and the Texas cop, he never informed her of why he had stopped her or that he was placing her under arrest. Yet he immediately attempted to control her movements to make her submissive, regardless, by asking her to stop smoking the cigarette she had in her hand. Ms. Bland was asked if she was irritated and she said yes because she did not understand why she was being stopped. The officer, in my opinion, was baiting Ms. Bland into a hostile encounter. He saw that she was irritated and so said, "You seem irritated. Are you irritated?" I believe he wanted her to verbalize her irritation with him for the dashcam. Her words he wanted on tape, but not his violent actions. In response to this compliance (the verbalizing of how she felt at his request), the officer then told Ms. Bland to get out of the car, hoping, I believe, to increase her irritation, escalating the situation. She asked why and refused.  The officer then further escalated the situation, reaching into her car, grabbing her, and yelling "I will light you up." At that point Ms. Bland got out of the car with her cigarette in hand; the angry trooper with his overbearing presence compelled her out of the path of the dashcam. The dashcam is there in order to protect both citizens and the cops. She needed it more that day than he--and I believe he knew this. It seems that the police officers did not want what they were about to do to Sandra Bland caught on video tape.  I could not bring myself to watch the entire video of Sandra Bland's tragic encounter with the Waller County, Texas trooper, but I heard and saw snippets of it on the local news. Even in snippets, it is painful--too painful to fully digest in one sitting, or at all.

And after three days Sandra Bland was dead in her jail cell; authorities immediately notified the public that she had committed suicide by smothering herself with a plastic bag.  Today, The Huffington Post reported that the DA stated that Sandra Bland swallowed large amounts of marijuana while in custody.  I guess she got the marijuana from the same source she got the plastic bag that snatched her last breath--her captors??! 

It haunts and hurts me that Sandra Bland died after an encounter with a cop for what was supposedly a minor traffic infraction, if one occurred at all; that she would not have died had she not been stopped for no clear reason on July 10, 2015 by trooper Encinia. The police are supposed to protect and serve and not escalate and brutalize citizens. Some have said that Sandra Bland deserved the mistreatment she received from Encinia and the other officer present at the scene because she was "combative" and not submissive, regardless. It has never been enough for black people, or women in general, in this country to be submissive. And for women (men and children) who live with or encounter abusers, no amount of submission is enough. An abuser will tease and test his victims in order to extract anew the level of submission said abuser needs, demands at any given time in any given situation. And black women are expected to be doubly submissive because of their race and gender. It was deeply disappointing to see women (I expect it of many men) justifying Sandra Bland's death because she spoke her mind (as if that in itself is a capital offense), audaciously asked why she was being stopped, refused to stop smoking in her own car and initially refused to exit her vehicle. I don't believe Sandra Bland would have escaped this encounter with only a warning as the police officer claimed in the "video". Abusers like to blame their victims with statements like "If only you had done/acted a certain way" or "if you had not provoked me." I believe the officer stopped Ms. Bland in order to harass her, hoping she would be the "angry black woman" at whom he might justifiably direct his sense of entitlement and rage.

 A lot of women have been taught by church and society that they are to be good "foot stools" for men, and when a woman "acts up" or refuses to be that foot stool, that "biblically" submissive woman, then she is seen as deserving any violence inflicted upon her. It can be explained away. Women who have not broken loose from this type of thinking, of course, include themselves in the mix. So they do all they can to be "good girls" (I even heard a female minister not long ago at a breast cancer event talk about the book she wrote about how women can be little girls again and thus become good marriage material) always submissive to male authority and abuse.

It troubles me deeply that as with other black women, men and children who have been senselessly brutalized and murder by rogue and racist cops, authorities and the media immediately began attempts to smear Sandra Bland's character or to support the trooper's version of events. Elton Mathis, Waller County's District Attorney, said of Sandra Bland at a press conference Monday, July 20, 2015, that "This was not a model person that was stopped." And Mathis added "it was not a model traffic stop." He applies the phrase "not a model person" to Sandra, while using the same phrase to describe the "traffic stop" rather than the officer. He negatively characterizes Sandra Bland herself but to the traffic stop, not the officer, Mathis attributes vague imperfection. He depersonalizes the stop as if Trooper E was being rated for his performance in a training drill. But Sandra Bland's character is tarnished. And people who are branded less than model citizens become unworthy of justice. Historically, in this country black women were and could be raped by white men with impunity. If ever a white man was indicted for raping a black woman, he almost always avoided conviction by claiming that the victim was less than a model citizen. Rosa Parks was not the first tired black woman forced to give up her seat on a public bus, but she was a "model citizen."  The tag "not a model person" is in some form or another often attached to people of color and it conjures up a host of illicit activities in the minds of the public who are constantly bombarded with images of black people as less than model citizens. Black people are more often characterized as thugs, unjustifiably and perennially angry, drug dealers, sexually loose, needlessly belligerent, combative hotheads, lazy, etc..  Mathis immediately called into question Sandra's character. Elton Mathis' statement tells me that he himself is not a model person or a model DA; that he is biased. One more reason that we need an independent investigation; we need the justice department to step in.

It disturbs me each time rogue and racist cops and others (i.e., George Zimmerman, et al.) have sought to justify the murder of black people, they conjure up a narrative of fear. It is interesting that cops who commit police brutality against black women, men, and children default to the narrative of fear for their own lives regardless, as if we all are wild animals. You know how it goes: an animal is always an animal, capable of biting the hand that feeds or pets it and therefore should always be feared. So whenever they are killed, evoke the narrative. Why not? it has worked in the past and it has worked in our biased judicial system. And even some black folk have accepted the narrative, regardless. According to Officer Encinia, Sandra Bland struggled with him and kicked him in the shin, and this caused him to fear her. He feared her so that he slammed her head against the ground as he pinned her to the ground and she could not feel her arm. She cried that she was subject to epileptic seizures, and he said "I don't care."  He, the cop in possession of a taser and gun, was willing to jeopardize her life--because she allegedly failed to signal or because she supposedly kicked him in the shin. Yet, it was he who first threatened--and  I believed delivered on his threat when out of sight of the dashcam- bodily harm to Sandra Bland: "I will light you up."

As has already been noted too many questions remain: Why was Sandra's mug shot taken in a prison jumpsuit and not in the clothes in which she was booked? Where did Sandra get a plastic bag? If Sandra Bland became suicidal after three days in jail, which I doubt, unless she was further brutalized and forced to take her own life, where did she get a plastic bag? According to records, Sandra allegedly admitted to attempted suicide after she had lost her baby but stated that she was not now suicidal. It seems to me that authorities doing their due diligence would have made sure there was nothing in her cell that could have allowed her to take her own life, given such a history. Now the authorities are claiming that Sandra Bland had taken large amounts of marijuana while in custody. How could she do so when the authorities had taken her picture in a jumpsuit and thus had already searched her and taken all her belongings including her clothing? Where did she get the marijuana? What was the officer doing to Sandra when he forced her out of sight of the dashcam, and why did the female officer not intervene? In what ways was the video of the encounter edited? What was taken out of the video?

I travel alone quite a bit. I am black and female. And on some days I am "sick and tired of being sick and tired," and I might just be courageous enough to assert my right to know if I should be stopped by a cop. And that cop might be like Officer Encinia. He might refuse to tell me why I am being stopped and yet expect my full unmitigated compliance. Or I might comply but be bullied and provoked--everyone, most people, have a breaking point. Like other black women and men in this country, my life could be cut short by one trivial, unnecessary encounter with the wrong police officer. Our fears are real. Sandra Bland, Kindra Chapman, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray, and many others, in marked and unmarked graves were real people who are mourned and missed by family and friends. For some it won't be real, the fear, the facts, until it happens to them or to someone they know. But now is past time to say "never again." #SayHerName #BlackLivesMatter #Godrequiresjustice

The Problem of the Color Line and the Poverty Line

Cairo, Egypt

W E B Dubois in his Souls of Black Folk (1903) wrote that the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line.  That line remains a problem.  And it intersects and overlaps the poverty line.  The problem of our century is the problem of poverty lines and lines of poverty. The current protest in Egypt is primarily driven by people fed up with the tyranny, greed, and economic and social abuses of resources and wealth and the impact of such vices on the masses relegating them to a life of poverty. The masses have found the voice and agency to speak in unison about their inhumane living conditions.  Here in the U.S. many people white, Mexican, Latina/o, Asian, Native, and black people live at, on, or near the poverty line.  And ethnic minorities live disproportionately at, on, or near the poverty line. Poverty affects people’s ability to have a quality of life and survival and access to quality health care and education.

July, 20, 2010 protest in Raleigh against NC re-segregation

De facto, our school systems are segregated along color and class lines so that the children of persons who live in poverty too often receive an impoverished education.  Recently a judge in Summit County, Akron, Ohio sentenced Kelley Williams-Bolar to ten days in jail for improperly enrolling her two girls in the wealthy white school district of Copley-Fairlawn where she did not  (and could not) reside.  A jury convicted her of two felony counts of tampering with records. The judge decided to make an example of Ms. Williams-Bolar who had no previous record.  She is a single mother who was going to college and working as a teaching assistant at Buchtel High School. Social networks like Facebook and major television networks and shows like the Today Show picked up the story and interviewed Ms. Williams-Bolar from her jail cell. Within a few hours change.org had garnered over 50,000 signatures petitioning  Ohio’s governor to pardon Ms. Williams-Bolar. As of this writing over 80,000 have signed that petition. Ms. Williams-Bolar was released from jail early after serving one day of her sentence.

The school districting lines can be as systematic and intentional as they are arbitrary. They are intentional in overwhelmingly keeping poor and minorities out of certain districts telling them where they cannot attend school. But they are arbitrary in determining which schools poor and minority children can attend.  We grew up in the Rich Street projects in Columbus, Ohio, which was on the wrong side of the railroad tracks (on the other side was downtown Columbus). We had no choice concerning what schools we could attend. A narrow two-way, two-lane street of about three blocks long ran through the middle of the projects –Cherry Drive, if I remember correctly. Children who lived on one side of Cherry Drive attended one elementary school  and children on the other side of Cherry Drive attended another school. The overwhelming majority of children in the projects where we lived were black.  This arbitrary division ensured that too many black children did not attended either one of the elementary schools.

Recently Governor Rich Perry encouraged a group of conservative businesspersons at a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Houston to pull their children out of public schools.  He stated, “Now I know most of you present here have already enrolled your children in some of our state's finest private schools. But I want to make private schools more accessible to Republican Christian families that cannot afford to pay high tuition and for those who cannot home school their children. [We know the overwhelmingly majority of Republicans are white.] In a city like Houston private school tuition can cost between $10,000 to $25,000 per year per child.” (Emphasis and bracketed info supplied) (Source: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/28/939444/-Governor-Rick-Perry-Urges-Republican-Voters-to-Abandon-Public-Schools-, Jan. 28, 2011). White flight is nothing new and black middle class flight is on the rise.  The blatant abandonment of poor children to failing public school systems amid budget shortfalls is nothing new, but neither is the phenomenon of poor parents defying the district lines to send their children to better schools.

Poor people of all races are expected to conform to the arbitrary and systemic school districting lines as well as to the poverty line if they are to expect government help and/or protection. (And that protection is generally meant to keep them within or close to those lines and not help them move into the Promised Land.) On Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011 the Washington Post online published a story by Laurence Changy and Geoffrey Gertz entitled “Poverty’s Success Story.”  Changy and Gertz argue that the World Banks’ (WB) global poverty figures that determine how many people live on less than $1.25 a day are out of date. Based on that figure, according to Changy and Gertz, the WB has stated that “1.37 billion people around the world are poor, including 456 million in India and 208 million in China.” Changy and Gertz point to a new Brookings Institution Report “Poverty in Numbers: The Changing State of Global Poverty from 2005 to 2015" as proof that the WB's official “less than $1.25-a-day” figures are no longer relevant. They claim that “the global poverty landscape has changed with the emergence of developing countries”; that  “between 2005 and 2010, nearly half a billion people escaped extreme hardship, as the total number of the world's poor fell to 878 million people. Never before in history have so many people been lifted out of poverty in such a short period.” (Emphasis supplied). I would like to know how Changy and Gertz define “extreme hardship” and by what measure have they determined that millions of people have been “lifted out of poverty”?  How are they defining poverty?  Is the measure still based on those who live on less than $1.25 per day as if living on $1.26 or even $1.50 per day should not be characterized as extreme poverty?  People who have no idea what it means to live in real poverty normally decide where to draw the poverty line.  People who seem to equate a penny or even a few dollars with a thousand dollars or more determine the poverty line.  They treat people living in poverty like points in the stock market.  To live in the United States and to declare that poverty is declining around the world is callous and out of touch with real people at best, and at worst it is an unconscionable and cruel attempt to sweep the poor under the proverbial rug. Changy and Gertz are more in touch with figures than they are with where and how people in their own country live.  Are people like these authors not aware that the homeless population in cities like Detroit has almost doubled and the available places for the newly homeless (never mind the chronically homeless) is shrinking.  Have they heard about the food lines that have at least tripled?  It is in the best interest of some people to act as if the poor among us are disappearing. But this etcha sketch approach to describing poverty is not in the interest of people who live in poverty. 

The 2009 poverty threshold for a person under 65 with no children is $11,161 per year.  So the person who makes a dollar more is not considered as living in poverty. A two-parent household with one child has a poverty threshold of $14,787. And if they increase their income by a few dollars, they are no longer considered to be impoverished. These statistics are systemic and yet arbitrary.  It seems to me more humane and just to focus on whether or not people’s basic human needs are being met.  And at the same time we must determine that things like quality education, health care, healthy food, safe and clean living conditions constitute basic human needs.  Love justice and equality for all.

~womanistntprof