A. Robert Allen's Blog, page 3

A Pop Quiz

This month’s blog will appeal to students of history and is presented below in question format. Yes, that’s right. I know I didn’t announce it…I’m giving you a pop quiz! If you read my books, I think you’ll know most of the answers, and if you haven’t yet had the chance, this will give you an idea of some of the embedded history in my Slavery and Beyond series. Don’t worry…all multiple choice, and I promise—absolutely no math! Have fun, but don’t cheat; the answers are listed at the bottom of the blog. Good luck!

Slavery and Beyond Series

Historical Questions

Question #1- What groups were at odds during the 1863 Draft Riots in New York?

a. Irish vs. Germans & Italians

b. Blacks vs. Italians & Wealthy

c. Blacks vs. Germans & Italians

d. Irish vs. Blacks & Wealthy

Question #2- Which political party in the 1860s United States was most associated with the freeing of the slaves?

a. The Democratic Party

b. The Republican Party

c. The Whig Party

d. The Independent Party

Question #3- How did the Battle of Gettsyburg factor into the Draft Riots?

a. Soldiers who would have controlled the riots had been moved from NY to Gettysburg

b. The soldiers returning from Gettysburg contributed to the escalation of violence in the streets

c. Celebrations of the victory in Gettysburg fueled some of the violence in New York

d. It didn’t factor in at all

Question #4- What did the Dead Rabbits and The Velvet Caps have in common?

a. They were both popular musical groups in mid to late 1800s NY

b. They were both Irish gangs in New York State

c. They were both baseball teams in the local NY league

d. None of the above

Question #5- Were Black men able to vote in New York during the Civil War?

a. No

b. Yes, they had the same voting rights as White men

c. Yes, but they had to own land worth at least $250

d. Yes, but they had to have been born free and worked as an apprentice for a period of ten years

Question #6- Why did New York consider breaking away from the Union in the early 1860s?

a. The city wanted to become part of the Confederacy

b. The city wanted to protect the institution of slavery

c. The city was afraid it would lose its role in funding and exporting the South’s cotton crop

d. None of the above. The city never considered leaving the Union

Question #7- How was The Black Fever (typhus) transmitted from person to person?

a. Through the air

b. Through drinking water

c. It was sexually transmitted

d. Through infected body lice

A little background for the last three questions—St. Domingue was the name of the French colony that became Haiti after the slave revolution.

Question #8- By what margin did the slave population outnumber the free population in St Domingue during the 1790s?

a. 2 to 1

b. 3 to 1

c. 5 to 1

d. 10 to 1

Question #9- What declaration caused such hope for a freer society in St. Domingue in the late 1700s?

a. The Declaration of Independence (US- 1776)

b. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (France- 1793)

c. The Declaration of Pillnitz (France- 1791)

d. None of the above

Question #10- How long was the typical lifespan of a slave once they began their life of hard labor as an adult in St. Domingue?

a. Thirty years

b. Twenty years

c. Ten years

d. Five years

So, how did you do? Check your answers against the key that appears below. I hope you enjoyed the exam!

Answers: 1 (d), 2 (b), 3 (a), 4 (b), 5 (c), 6 (c), 7 (d), 8 (d), 9 (b), 10 (d)

The Line

I woke up from a dream and my hands trembled as I sat by my computer to recreate what I’d just experienced. Here it is.

The line snaked around the corner as everyone nervously waited. The women fixed their hair and the men alternated between straightening and loosening their ties. Was it better to look sharp or composed? The men thought the women had the natural advantage, but they seemed just as nervous. One young woman whispered to her friend, “The big guy at the door is my cousin’s college roommate—just stick with me.” The man behind her reacted. “Hey, this is all I have on me.” He tried to hand her some bills from his pocket. “I’ll give you more after we’re inside. Say I’m with you.” The woman couldn’t believe she made the mistake of speaking of her connection loud enough to be overheard. She didn’t want the man’s money, only to get in. This was the place to be—everyone knew that. “What are you talking about!” she exclaimed. “You shouldn’t eavesdrop. Leave me and my friend alone.” The man raised his voice as he turned to the people behind him. “Listen everyone, she knows someone, but won’t help any of us!” The people on the line became loud as they expressed their displeasure. Two of the three large doormen rushed to the source of the commotion and escorted ten people off the line, including the woman, her friend, and the man who started the ruckus. I still had my spot—the last person removed, only two places in front of me.

The line inched forward and the door was almost within view. The next group peered hopefully at the doormen as they waived something they pulled from their pockets. I intuitively understood their thoughts. Pick me. Pick me. Please pick me. The men started to point and give instructions. “You, and you, not you, no, no, no, definitely not you.” Two of the men laughed—the last person never had a chance.

I woke up for a moment in a sweat as I asked myself. What was this line? Was I back in the 80s trying to gain entry to the most popular disco in New York, and what was the deal with all of the ties on the men? Why did getting in matter so much? After giving it some thought, I discounted the disco possibility. The clothing didn’t fit—no colorful shirts, no tight jeans, and no platform shoes. I had so many questions, but no answers. It took a while to fall back asleep.

I found myself back on the line within the next group to be considered for admission, pulled something out of my pocket, and raised my hand. I still had hope. Pick me. Pick me. The doormen approached, “You yes, no, yes you on the right, no, no, no.” They looked at me, paused, and asked me to step forward. I finally understood as I read the sign above the door and realized what I held in my hand. It wasn’t a disco, it wasn’t 1982, and I was not holding a ticket. I woke up in another panic. My God, how did we get to this point? It was 2017, and I was waiting in line to enter US Immigration with passport in hand.

The Adorned and the Unsullied

A long Sunday morning web surfing session with a cup of coffee by my side delivered me to a site called, Fact Retriever (factretriever.com) and I quickly discovered an interesting article entitled, 50 Thought-provoking Facts about Race and Racism written by Karin Lehnardt. All fifty facts were of interest, but I started sorting and prioritizing them, and came up with my own personal Top Five. I didn’t group them in order of priority—David Letterman style. Instead, I organized them into three categories: The Past, The Present, and The Future.

The Past

Perhaps because of my affinity for history, I was compelled to include a couple of facts related to the way race was viewed in the past.

Fact #1 – The concept of race is a modern concept. In the ancient world, the Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians, and Muslims did not have racial categories. Rather people were divided according to religion, class, language, etc.
Fact #2- Aristotle’s famous division between Greek and Barbarian was not based on race, but on those who organized themselves into community city-states and those who did not. The ancient Romans categorized people not on biological race or skin color, but on differing legal structures upon which they organized their lives.

So centuries ago, race wasn’t based on skin color…interesting.

The Present

I began my focus on the present with additional facts related to the definition of race. Do we consider race to be about biology/science or is race nothing more than a political/social classification subject to change? I found the following two modern day facts related to this question:

Fact #3- Most anthropologists and biologists view race as a political grouping with roots in slavery and colonialism. The number of races and who belongs in each has shifted over time—not because of responses to scientific advances in human biology, but rather in response to political purposes.
Fact #4- While humans differ genetically in some ways, such as blood type and skin pigmentation, most anthropologists and biologists believe categories of race are not biologically grounded because modern humans simply have not evolved into separate subspecies or races.

The facts listed above make the case that race isn’t based on science and the definition is driven by political objectives—not a great surprise.

The Future

So now we get to what I found to be the most fascinating fact, which I’ve saved for last:

Fact #5- Scientists project that in 1,000 years humans will still come in many different colors, though people in the city will have a more mixed skin color rather than strikingly dark or light skin.

Before I get started, let’s admit that this is the most questionable “fact.” The only aspect that is “factual” is that scientists did project this—whether their projection will come to fruition, however, remains to be seen. This last fact really provides food for thought—actually excellent material for a book! What might the world look like in a thousand years if this projection proves to be accurate? There are a number of scenarios to explore. My imagination, along with three strong cups of coffee, provided the inspiration for two interesting possibilities. Here goes…

The first scenario…

It is the year 3017 and children are shocked when they learn in history class that billions of lives were lost or ruined over the years because of the color of someone’s skin. “Moniker” has replaced the hurtful term “race” in recognition of the fact that it is only a name that will always be subject to change. The moniker for people in metropolitan areas is the Adorned and the fact that their mixed heritage connects them to all of the other people in the world is a source of great pride. The more enlightened citizens of the city bristle when they hear someone refer to their rural neighbors as the Unadorned, because no group should ever be defined as the opposite of the positive traits of another—those were thoughts of days gone by.

Rural citizens go by the moniker Absolutes because their lineage is concentrated within the confines of their districts. Instruction in the schools within the rural districts focuses on multi-cultural issues and Absolutes are counseled to also embrace their own heritage. Many rural teens, however, suffer from feelings of inadequacy based on their purity. All schools are staffed with well-trained counselors who know the signs of the disorder.

Wealth is concentrated in the cities and as such, the average income of an Adorned tends to be higher than that of an Absolute, but a breakthrough in the year 2850 led to great progress in equitable income distribution. In that year, Henry Gates, who descended from the founder of Microsoft, developed what became accepted as a worldwide definition of “enough.” Now, all entrepreneurs are as motivated as ever to make their fortune, but they no longer “win” by dying with the largest estate. In 3017, you “win” when you accumulate “enough” at an early age and spend the rest of your days generating larger profits to be redistributed to those less fortunate, while enjoying national acclaim and generous tax and other financial benefits from the federal and state governments.

Okay, I probably went too far with the definition of “enough,” but I have a feeling that no matter how much we evolve, the “money issue” will always be a big one!

The second scenario…

It is the year 3017 and children are shocked when they learn in history class that many years ago, it was possible to move to a new place and be welcomed by a different kind of people. Rural citizens laugh at the old labels used for race, because the bottom line had been clear for many years—either you are pure and with your own people or among the half-breeds in the city. Citizens of the city suggested they were Adorned with the influences of all of the people of the world and should be known as such. Rural citizens then took umbrage to the implication that this made them the Unadorned, and appropriately modified the balance of the name after the Un to Unsullied.

Racial divisions dominate many aspects of life, and the labels of Adorned and Unsullied have also become the names of the political parties. Over the last ten years, the Adorned gained ground on the Unsullied because they welcomed converts to their way of thinking in the cities, where the wealth is concentrated. Rich Adorned benefactors refuse to spread their money to rural areas, however. As a result, the divide between the wealthy (Adorned) and poor (Unsullied) has become extreme. In November of 3016 a very famous and long-time Adorned candidate began expressing some Unsullied views. He carried just enough votes from both sides to claim the White House. The country is on edge as he assumes office…

I’ll stop here. I had a little fun with that—definitely food for thought. Maybe it is a good idea for a book! Only time will tell.

A Robert Allen (Tony)

P.S. The author of the article I referenced above provided a full listing of sources for each fact. If you have an interest, you can find the article at factretriever.com.

Slavery in New York

From the revolutionary war era through the end of the Civil War, New York was on all sides of the slavery issue. Slavery was alive and well during the years preceding the conflict, and then the desire for soldiers caused both sides during the war to grant freedom to males who were willing to enlist. Six thousand slaves served in the Continental Army and even more served on the British side when the Royal Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, issued the first emancipation proclamation, which preceded Lincoln’s famous decree by ninety years. In this proclamation, the royal governor promised freedom to “all indentured servants, negroes, and others belonging to rebels,” if they enlisted in the British army as part of Dunmore’s Ethiopian Regiment. Their uniforms were marked with the phrase, “Liberty to Slaves.”

The word spread fast of the offer of freedom from the British and the flow of runaways to New York during the British occupation of the city was so strong, officials instructed ferryboat operators to temporarily stop transporting runaway slaves to stem the tide. While many of the runaways did enlist, others worked in various capacities for the British Army. These blacks earned wages for the first time in their lives and were treated as free even though their ultimate fate remained uncertain.

When the war ended, many of the formerly enslaved blacks feared they would be returned to their masters. Thankfully, the British insisted in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 that slaves who were promised freedom were exempted from the provision that required the return of all property. This failure to return slaves was a major sticking point in Anglo-American relations for years to come.

After the war, a number of Methodists and Quakers encouraged members in New York to manumit their slaves. They declared slavery an affront to God’s will, but viewed abolition as a gradual process that should take place with as little social disruption and violence as possible. This religiously based movement led to the creation of the Manumission Society, which would grow to include hundreds of white merchants, bankers, ship-owners, and lawyers.

Progress was slow, however, and in 1790 slavery was still well entrenched in New York. The state’s population of 340,000 included 21,000 slaves, and 4,600 free blacks. New York City recorded a black population of 3,100, two-thirds of them slaves. Over twenty percent of all households in the city were slave-owners. In Brooklyn, slaves accounted for forty percent of the entire population—the same as Virginia.

The Manumission Society operated within the law and offered legal assistance to accused runaways. Society members even pledged to respect the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which enabled escaped slaves to be returned to their owners. In many cases, however, corrupt New York politicians used the Act to legalize the kidnapping of blacks on the streets of New York by providing kidnappers with legal paperwork, in exchange for a bribe, which enabled blacks taken off the streets of New York to be transported to the South.

In 1799, New York’s legislature finally adopted a measure for gradual abolition, becoming the next-to-last northern state to do so (New Jersey delayed until 1804). Follow-up legislation in 1817 decreed that all slaves who had been living at the time of the 1799 Act would be emancipated on July 4, 1827. On that day, nearly 3,000 persons still held as slaves in the state gained their freedom, and slavery in New York finally came to an end. Our annual Independence Day celebration, therefore, commemorates not only the independence of our nation but also the end of slavery in New York.

About ten years before the end of slavery in New York, effolrts to remove free blacks from the country began to gain momentum. The most well known group supporting this cause was the American Colonization Society. The colonization movement gained momentum in the 1820s when Congress provided funds to establish Liberia on the west coast of Africa as a refuge for blacks from the United States. Some African Americans shared the society’s perspective, but most opposed voluntary emigration vehemently. They viewed the rise of the colonization movement with alarm and conducted a mass meeting in Philadelphia in January 1817, soon after the founding of the American Colonization Society, to organize their resistance.

Asserting their own rights as Americans, free blacks reminded all who would listen of our nation’s founding principal of equality, and had the nerve to say that it applied to blacks as well. Their mantra—“This Country is Our Only Home,” rang true for almost all blacks, who were, in fact, born in the United States. Through this coordinated attack on colonization, our modern-day concept of a type of equality that transcends racial boundaries took root.

This was the political backdrop to the founding of the free black town of Weeksville in Brooklyn in the 1830s. Many Weeksville residents owned land, which enabled them to vote according to the laws of the time. Weeksville residents also benefited from their own school, Colored School No. 2, which was led by the very well known writer and activist, Junius Morel. The school alone was reason enough to believe the next generation would be better than the last. This very special community was a refuge for Civil War era blacks, who fled Manhattan after the New York Draft Riots of 1863, and provides the backdrop for my second novel, entitled, “A Wave From Mama.” I hope you enjoy it!

It’s Finally Time to Talk About The Flags

The debate about the Confederate flag has been in the news of late and many of us have strong positions on both sides of the issue. I’ve always believed that before you make up your mind and take a firm stance, it is helpful to hear a reasonable and logical presentation of the opposing view. Let me admit before I begin that I consider the Confederate flag to be a symbol of the dark period of our history during which slavery thrived, but I do have my process, so let’s hear the opposing arguments…

Argument # 1- The Confederate Flag is Nothing More Than a Symbol of Our Old Southern Heritage

Are we to forget about the entire period before the Civil War and all of our ancestors who lived during those times? Weren’t there slaves in Northern states at various points as well during this period? Are we removing all flags in existence during that period because they are tainted by the institution of slavery? The State of Texas proudly displays its former “Lone Star” flag (even though it has been part of the United States for over 160 years) and no one seems to have a problem with that. The brief period that Texas was an independent nation is something the state chooses to remember, much like the other Southern states choose to remember their time as the Confederate States. So why is the Lone Star flag appropriate and the Confederate flag, not? Why is the heritage of the South any less important than the heritage of any other region of the country? Do we really want to erase our memory of the old South?

 

Argument #2- The Confederate Flag Has a New Modern Meaning

Who hasn’t seen the use of the Confederate flag in the popular 1970’s television show, the Dukes of Hazard, or noticed its use on license plates, bumper stickers, mugs and any number of other fun items…yes, even diapers! 150 years have passed since the end of the Civil War—aren’t we making too much of this? Today, the flag stands for the fun and adventurous concept of being a rebel, and what’s wrong with that?

Admittedly, my Googling effort was not exhaustive, but the two arguments listed above were the most reasonable I found. There were others, however, that were a bit more sensational. One article, in particular, that I will choose not to identify (the source is available upon request) offered the following thought:

“The Confederate flag and our Southern heritage has been mistreated and criticized againts as being racist. How can you say that our flag is racist? Because we owned slaves during the Civil War? That would be a horrible misunderstanding because Southerners were NOT the only states who had slaves. Union commander and general Ulysses S. Grant owned a personal slave. Also, if it were not for slave owners, the blacks being sent to America would not have a place to live. We basically gave them food and shelter, just they paid by working, not with money.”

Wow…so let’s say that we forgive the spelling and grammar and focus on the content. I don’t know about you, but I see a number of issues…

Let’s reorganize one of the passages for better understanding:

 Owning slaves does not equate to being racist—in fact, it is all a horrible misunderstanding!

I guess a fair percentage of the slaves must have been wealthy white men.

 

I wouldn’t dare paraphrase my second point, because a particular two sentence sequence perfectly illustrates a number of things:

 “…if it were not for slave owners, the blacks being sent to America would not have a place to live. We basically gave them food and shelter, just they paid by working, not with money.”

Ah, so there we have it! Slavery was a social program designed to solve the problem of all of these “Blacks” being sent to our shores by God knows who—it was a fair exchange, work for food and shelter. The author even classifies himself as a slave owner when he says “we.”

I stopped my research after coming across this last piece, and I must report that my position on the matter remained unchanged–so much for my process.

The Confederate flag was actually raised in 1961 in South Carolina to demonstrate the state’s massive resistance to the movement for racial desegregation, which was taking place at that time. A few years later when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968, most American military bases throughout South Vietnam fittingly lowered their American flags to half-mast. The white soldiers at the Cam Ranh Naval Base, however, celebrated by raising the Confederate flag and burning crosses—do you think that was a tribute to Southern heritage or a manifestation of the new modern meaning of a fun “rebellious spirit?”

As for the comparison of the Confederate flag to the Texas “Lone Star” flag, let me point out that the “Lone Star” flag is actually the official state flag of Texas and is not associated with anything other than a successful revolution against Mexico and perhaps the fiercely independent Texas spirit. To be fair, there may be some bad connotations of the flag, but not on this side of the Rio Grande.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a somewhat significant element in the South that will not let go of their Confederate roots, an observation that was nicely depicted in a book I recently read called Spacecorp, by Ejner Fulsang. One of the themes in this futuristic tale related to this issue. Without giving away the plot, I’ll say that in Fulsang’s version of the future, not only did the Confederate flags never come down, the Southern part of our country broke off from the rest of the states to become the independent country of Dixie. Is that where we are heading? I certainly hope not.

So why are we now complaining in such a vocal way about Confederate flags in the year 2015? Is it nothing more than the massacre in South Carolina, which followed the racial incidents in Ferguson (Michael Brown) and New York (Eric Garner)? I think it is more than that, and this is where it gets interesting. While there are likely lots of theories, here is mine…

A couple of years ago, I took my mother to see a powerful movie called The Butler. The early part of this his film opened in the south in the either 1920s or 1930s, and it was clear that while slavery may have technically ended, it was still being practiced in principle—I’ll never forget the scene in the movie where the young mother of the main character was taken out of the fields where she was working side by side with her husband and child, to a nearby shed where she was raped by the young white plantation owner. The husband didn’t dare stop the rape and when he tried to object when it was all over, the young white plantation owner shot him in the head in front of his wife, child, and all of the other workers. I could just as easily have referred to the white man as the Master and all of the workers in the fields as slaves because this could have played out in the same exact way in 1845. As a matter of fact, this incident was not even a reason to stop work for the day. This was simply a case of the Master, choosing to entertain himself with one of his slaves, being forced to discipline another for the nerve of objecting. There was no crime committed—just another black man who didn’t know his place. My point here is that there were no complaints about flags in the 20’s & 30’s, because there were bigger issues with which to deal.

Then in the 1960s, almost 100 years after the end of the Civil War, the Civil Rights movement began to usher in the first real meaningful changes, but still, there were bigger issues than flags, and it took us a good fifty additional years to focus on the topic. Yes, it is true that the terrible murders in South Carolina were the immediate cause of our Confederate flag debate, but in a more meaningful way, I’m pleased to note that we have tackled (but not completely resolved) many of the bigger issues, and it is finally time to talk about the flags. Don’t get me wrong, we still have a long way to go in terms of racial equality, but I’m pleased that we are finally at the point that it is time to deal with those offensive and hateful Confederate flags. The state of South Carolina finally took their flag down in July of 2015—let’s take them all down.

Lessons Of Our Fathers

I remember being at a diner once when a well-intentioned waitress introduced a Pakistani man, who was sitting alone, to an Indian man, who was with his son. She must have thought that since they both were originally from the same general region surrounding Kashmir, they would likely become fast friends. At first, this seemed similar to a New Yorker in Shanghai being introduced to someone from New Jersey. In that case, had I been the New Yorker, I would have chuckled at the absurdity of it all and extended my hand to the New Jereseyite with a wink—but that’s not what happened in the diner. You see, Pakistanis and Indians in the contested region surrounding Kashmir have been at odds for generations, and the mistrust of each side has been passed down from father to son and even followed them to New York. The waitress knew instinctively from their body language she’d made a mistake.

Parents teach us so much when we are children. But as we mature, we sometimes need to recognize when we are being exposed to a position or bias that is not something to emulate. This is easier said than done, however; and in our effort to fit in and gain approval, we often adopt our parents’ beliefs. I reflected on this as I finished the second half of my book, Failed Moments, which chronicles the deep-seated tensions that erupted between the Irish and Blacks in New York City during the Draft Riots in 1863. In the 150 years that followed this terrible riot, the Irish became one of the most dominant ethnic groups within the NYPD. Did each of the generations that passed since 1863 accept these terrible lessons from their fathers? And if so, did they, in turn, pass them along to their children? Could this long-entrenched bias be at play at some very deep level in the year 2015 and somehow be part of this perceived police/Black problem? The answer is probably not—sorry for being so sensational, but it is an interesting theory. Let me tell you why.

As someone who always knew he was 50% Irish and recently discovered he is 25% Black, I am in a unique position to reflect on this question. I lived my life in more of an Irish world as a kid. I never heard racist comments from my Irish father, but I do know that the chain of racism was broken with his generation. My grandfather on the Allen side, whose family came to the United States after the Great Irish Famine in the mid-1800s, died in 1958 with some terrible positions on issues of race and religion. My father, who loved and respected his dad, knew that those lessons were not to be learned and certainly not to be passed down to the next generation. If my Irish family took about one hundred years after the Draft Riots to shake their views, is it inconceivable to think that others still hold them? Perhaps not. I can reflect on how, as a young man, I never espoused any racist views, but I might have let a racist comment from someone else go, in order to fit in. As I became an adult, however, I never let anything go—and of that, I am proud.

When I think about how my father, Edward Allen, and his brother, Jack, broke the Allen family chain of racism, I smile. It is one thing to think the right thoughts, say the right things, and provide respect to people of all races and religions, but my father and Uncle took it several steps beyond that. They opened a bar called Allen’s Alley in Washington Heights (Upper Manhattan) in the mid-1950s. This became one of the first mixed-race bars in the area. The Amsterdam News reviewed Allen’s Alley in its “Footlights and Sidelights” column in 1954 and called it “the mecca for interracial patrons in Upper Manhattan.”

With the success of Allen’s Alley under their belts, the Allen brothers looked north to the Bronx and scouted out new locations for another nightspot. They found an Irish bar where a doorman strictly enforced a “No Black” rule, which was just fine with the clientele. My father and brother liked the bar’s location and purchased it, but the rules quickly changed. Given that my father was “the brains” and my uncle, “the brawn,” in their lifelong partnership, I’ll assume my father came up with the idea of holding an NAACP rally on St. Patrick’s Day and my uncle provided the security. Talk about a bold move. There is a clip from The Amsterdam News on April 6, 1957, which pictures my father and uncle presenting their donation to the NAACP.

While I found the Irish/Black conflict dating back to the mid-1800s fascinating when writing my book, the connection may not be so valid today. The NYPD was half Irish in the mid-1800s, 5/6 Irish by the turn of the century, but the Irish are no longer the most dominant group on the force. The increasing numbers of Hispanic, Black, and Asian officers (over half the NYPD) provide a logical argument against any generational prejudice being at the heart of our modern-day incidents.

Still, when I hear of a case like Eric Garner, I do worry about long-held biases as well as how the facts often get lost in the sensational and automatic responses offered by those who claim to support the victim and those who speak on behalf of the police. The public tends to jump to conclusions in individual cases because of the perceived track record of anti-Black bias, which our own President Obama pronounced as an “American problem.”

When an incident like this takes place, there seems to be an urgent and immediate need to show unity and support for one of our own. This is true within the police department as well as within the Black community. The responses outside of these two groups also tend to be automatic based on long-held beliefs. In my opinion, these strong automatic responses often get in the way of the truth and ultimately do not serve either side.