Some Brief (for me) Thoughts on the DOJ Report on Ferguson

I’ve thought about writing an extended post on Ferguson - or perhaps more on Tamir Rice and Eric Garner, whose deaths sure seem a lot like murder, but will not result in justice. I’m not sure that another white male voice is needed in that discussion nearly so much as merely that white America would actually listen to African American voices and take them seriously.

However, I am a lawyer, and I do care about racial issues, so I read the entire Justice Department report on the Ferguson Police Department.

Before you read the rest of my post, PLEASE read the entire report. Yes, I know it is 105 pages, and not exactly a page turning novel, but I believe it is one of the most important - perhaps the most important document you will read this year.

When the Ferguson protests broke out, two things convinced me that, whatever would turn out to be true about the trigger event (and whoever Michael Brown turned out to be), something was, as Marcellus tells Horatio, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Those two things? First of all, the cops started confiscating video recorders and cameras and arrested journalists. This is, first of all, regardless of what many cops seem to think, illegal. Citizens, let alone journalists my record the police in their official duties without restriction.

The second thing was the officer screaming on camera at the protesters,

"Bring it, all you fucking animals! Bring it!"

These two incidents revealed that first, the Ferguson PD was deeply racist at its absolute core, as such a statement says in public what is common in private; and second, that the PD knew deep down that if their actions were broadcast, they would be seen as unacceptable.

So, with that, read the report. Please. All of it.

Here is the link.

***

I think the report largely speaks for itself, but I want to comment on a few things, particularly from the perspective of a lawyer.

1. While the other issues may resonate more with whites, I believe the ingrained racism in the Ferguson PD colored everything else that went on.

My conservative friends tend to loathe the use of statistics to show unequal outcomes, but I think that the statistics by race show that the inner beliefs (as expressed in racist communications that went unchallenged) gave rise to racist actions. While the Ferguson PD actually gave voice to their racist attitudes, not all departments are as, um, imprudent. Still, the statistics show a pattern of unequal treatment of equal actions that is unlikely to happen by chance. Inner racism led to outward racist actions.

I might even go one further here: in an environment where an officer could scream - on camera - "Bring it, all you fucking animals! Bring it!" and know that his fellow officers wouldn’t shun him, is an environment which will result in dead young black men sooner rather than later.

One of the frustrations I have in talking with my conservative friends about the other two major flashpoints in race relations during my lifetime is that flagrantly racist statements are brushed aside. The focus keeps being brought to what awful persons Rodney King and O.J. Simpson were. You can agree or disagree on that, but the problem is that these two were flashpoints for deeper issues, and you can’t just dismiss the deeper issues. It was painful enough to watch King get beaten nearly to death by four officers. But what I believe fanned the flames is that Lawrence Powell, who delivered most of the blows, was on tape referring to a domestic violence call at an African American household as “gorillas in the mist.”

Likewise, I believe O.J. is a murderer who got off, but the real reason he did was Mark Fuhrman. Did Furhman plant a glove? Most whites would say no, I suppose. However, I can very much see why it would be easy - particularly as an African American - to believe he did.

Why?

Well, um, this quote on tape:

"Yeah we work with niggers and gangs. You can take one of these niggers, drag 'em into the alley and beat the shit out of them and kick them. You can see them twitch. It really relieves your tension...we had them begging that they'd never be gang members again, begging us. [I’d tell them, ‘You do what you're told, understand, nigger?’"

I’m afraid that this attitude is endemic throughout many - perhaps most - law enforcement agencies in our country. Certainly it isn’t just limited to Ferguson and Los Angeles. And it isn’t limited to law enforcement, but is rather widespread throughout our American culture, if you just listen a bit.

It isn’t the specifics of Michael Brown or Rodney King.

It is the routine and casual dehumanization.

As Shylock said in one of Shakespeare’s most uncomfortable plays:

I am a Jew. Hath

not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,

dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with

the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject

to the same diseases, healed by the same means,

warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as

a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?

if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison

us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not

revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will

resemble you in that.

[BTW, Fuhrman, far from becoming a pariah, even after his conviction for perjury, has made quite the career in talk radio claiming a conspiracy against white Christians. Isn’t that nice?]

2.     The Ferguson PD routinely violated the law and the Constitution. Not accidentally, but as a matter of department policy.

It seems as if the Ferguson PD never even tried to meet the “reasonable suspicion” standard for a detention and the “probable cause” standard for searches and arrests.

Again, this is not limited to Ferguson. Witness, as a flagrant example, the “stop and frisk” law in New York City, which in practice resulted in a targeting of minorities. (This Atlantic article is  good place to start.)

I find it particularly interesting that the Justice Department didn’t get its information on violations of the law from alleged victims.

It got the evidence from the written reports of the officers themselves, in which they documented their own violations of the law as if there was nothing wrong with them.

This speaks to a culture in which the law is not known, not respected, and not observed. So when you think of the protests (and/or riots - take your pick) in Ferguson, understand that they were the result of years of illegal actions by the police - crimes against citizens, to be more blunt.

Again, I am rather afraid that Ferguson is hardly alone or unusual when it comes to this attitude. I know I am treading on some dangerous ground with my friends and relatives in law enforcement, but I really should mention that a person I know on the LAPD, when the protests hit that city, posted on Facebook that once someone threw a bottle at the cops, the entire protest should be shut down.

I hate to have to break it to all you cops, but that isn’t the law. You can’t terminate everyone’s right to assembly and speech as soon as one or a few bad actors throws a bottle. This was also the problem in Ferguson, where protesters were met by military weapons, tear gas (illegal under chemical weapons treaties - like the one we used as justification to invade Iraq…) and arrests of journalists. Flagrant ignorance, disregard, and violation of the law.

3. The report highlights a change in the mission of law enforcement from public safety to revenue generation.

This is something my younger libertarian and conservative friends have been worried about for a while. Somehow, in the last generation or two, politicians have started using law enforcement to balance budgets and generate revenue. Libertarians are particularly concerned about asset forfeiture, but there is also a serious problem in the use of infractions as a revenue generator. (see note below)  And thus, decisions about enforcement are made with an eye toward money rather than safety.

If anything, the Ferguson PD was essentially a tax collection agency targeting the poor, rather than an agency to “protect and serve” the residents of Ferguson. If you want to know why nobody in Ferguson seems to trust the cops, look no further than this report.

Again, this isn’t just about Ferguson. Here in California, we had a HUGE spike in the number of traffic tickets during our budget crisis a few years ago. They jacked the cost of a ticket way up, and the number of cases filed went sky high. (Since this coincided with serious and real budget cuts to our local courts, it created a good backlog of cases.)

On a more personal level, a local municipality supported its large police force (1 for every 23 citizens) by confiscating the cars of unlicensed drivers and splitting the impound fees with a local business. (At least this, unlike the shenanigans in Ferguson, was clearly illegal.) I myself got ticketed for a bogus (and unverifiable offense) and a colleage was cuffed in the back of a squad car for license tags expired by one day.

But see, this was a minor inconvenience to me. Pay the $200 bucks and go to traffic school. Sucks, but it didn’t mean the difference between paying the rent or the grocery bill.

If you read the report, what was going on was a clear targeting of the poor - largely African Americans - to generate revenue. And the “offenses” were pretty bogus. Really, $200 bucks for a freaking parking ticket? Jaywalking?

And my favorite: talking back to the cops.

Yep, not obeying the cops, even when they gave illegal orders, got you arrested and fined. It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that the Ferguson PD really believed that a badge and a gun was permission to order citizens to do whatever the hell the cops wanted.

Everything became a way to generate revenue. And there seems to be this surprise that there were protests. And that they spread across the nation.

These things don’t happen by accident. Our nation was founded - in large part - as a protest against arbitrary brutality and the use of the colonists as a source of revenue. Is this really that different?

It’s hard to capture this in talking about the report. The best thing is to read the report. It really does speak for itself.

Note: Oppression of the poor

I admit I am a bit appalled that the Evangelical church seems so unconcerned about cases like this. Ferguson seems like a rather direct parallel with the oppression of the poor that the Old Testament prophets railed against. (See, for example, Divine Vintage, reviewed here.) This was also the sort of thing which made Feudalism such a burden on the poor: the never ending levy of taxes and fees to support the lifestyles of the wealthy.

Woe to those who enact evil statutes And to those who constantly record unjust decisions, So as to deprive the needy of justice And rob the poor of My people of their rights, So that widows may be their spoil And that they may plunder the orphans. Now what will you do in the day of punishment, And in the devastation which will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help? And where will you leave your wealth? (Isaiah 10:1-3)

Do not rob the poor because he is poor, Or crush the afflicted at the gate; For the LORD will plead their case And take the life of those who rob them. (Proverbs 22:22-23)

Indeed, so much of the Bible is concerned with injustice - particularly against the poor - and yet it seems to be absent from the Evangelical response to racial tension. I find that distressing.

(It’s beyond the scope of this post, but I think Evangelicals would rather moralize about the supposed oversexualization of the poor - particularly African Americans. It’s much more fun than talking about systemic oppression…) 

So no, we are going to talk about thugs and welfare queens and turn a blind eye to the plunder of the poor. 

(Oh yeah, the judge who features prominently in the report owes $172,000 in taxes. How nice to imprison the poor for unpaid parking tickets while collecting $1500 per hour and cheating on one's taxes...) 

Disclosure about my experience:

I lived about 4 miles from where the Rodney King beating occurred. We lived there until the year of the riots, after which we moved north. I remember hearing the gunshots at the Rampart division of the LAPD, and I had relatives working for LAPD at the time. It was a bit scary, and we, like many white families, feared that we would be victimized as a result of our race.

I do remember, though, that even though I didn’t agree with the riots, I did feel somehow, down deep, that something was wrong when a man would be beaten half to death even when unarmed and outnumbered. It’s something that, even during my most conservative period, still made me uncomfortable. It is interesting that a decade after the riots, the Rampart scandal hit the LAPD, and it was discovered that there was a whole culture of corruption, criminal behavior by officers, and falsification of evidence. Like in the case of Ferguson, the Justice Department investigated, a bunch of people resigned or were fired, and a “consent decree” was entered forcing a bunch of reforms on the department. That is probably what will happen with Ferguson - although the city may choose to disband the department like Maricopa, which might be the best option at this point.

So I think I understand a bit of white fear. But also, I am human enough to recognize that there is a problem. Something is rotten in Denmark - I mean the United States.

I am not anti-cop:

I am not anti-cop. If anything, I have been supportive of law enforcement throughout my life. I understand that it is a hard job, and that it is sometimes easy to second guess.

My point about this is that once a city and a police department have lost the populace this way, everything becomes so much harder for them. That is why I think that it is so important to hold bad officers accountable. If you look at the Tamir Rice situation, the shooter had been washed out of another department for “inability to follow regulations,” dangerous lack of composure, and emotional problems, for example. He should never have been allowed to handle a gun, let alone carry a badge. These guys are a small percentage, but they are a problem, and they are hardly ever actually held accountable. (True story: one of the guys on our local Maricopa force was finally dismissed, not for all his abuse of authority, but because of his possession of child porn…)

This tendency to circle the wagons rather than get rid of bad cops - particularly those with personalities unsuited to the task of de-escalation - is really due to the bad culture within law enforcement. A disregard of the law and the constitution, a view of poor, minority, citizens as a population to be controlled, rather than protected, and the increasing use of law enforcement as a source of revenue.

As I am noticing among my younger, libertarian and conservative friends, law enforcement is losing support with its core constituency for these reasons. This should be a wakeup call that the calling to “protect and serve” is being lost somehow. In a free country, law enforcement exists to keep order, protect the innocent, and work collaboratively with the citizens to secure a free and safe existence. If the trust of the citizens is lost, the results tend to be anarchy (or revolution) or a police state where vast resources are necessary to keep the population in check by brute force. (See, World, History of the for examples…)

By failing to (ahem) police yourselves, you are making your job exponentially harder. If you are losing the trust of people like me, you are doing something wrong, and a correction is in order. Just saying.

On Profanity:

There is a reason I don’t bleep or soften the quote by the Ferguson officer. In fact, I’ll repeat it here:

“Bring it, all you fucking animals. Bring it!”

It needs to be heard in all its insulting and dehumanizing awfulness. A good use of profanity can intensify and heighten communication.

It can also reveal the rotten, putrid heart of those who use it to dehumanize others.

A great historical case of this was that of Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture under President Nixon. When asked why the Republicans failed to attract black votes, he replied with one of the most insulting and racist quotes of all time: one that even cost him his job in the 1970s.

"I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shit."

The quote reveals the heart. 

 

Red Tails, Black Wings by John B. Holway

Source of book: Borrowed from the library

I have been wanting to read this book at least since the movie came out. However, that is usually the worst time to find a book at the library. I picked this book as part of my Black History Month reading. 

I’m enough of a World War II aviation buff to be at least passingly familiar with the Tuskegee Airmen (aka, the Red Tails), but I had never read their entire story.

The story of African Americans and the US military is one of frustration. After a few good decades in the aftermath of the Civil War, the military became segregated - and indeed hostile to any participation by blacks. This became particularly pronounced during WWI, thanks in no small part to Woodrow Wilson, who was both Southern and a bigot. (Not my favorite president, by a long shot, shall we say.) Even those who were allowed to enroll got shunted to “service” jobs. Cooks and janitors, personal servants to the brass. Certainly nothing resembling leadership. The quotes from this book from the time are painful to read for their blanket assumption of the inferiority of non-whites when it came to character, discipline - and especially leadership.

In the face of all this, a special group of African American pilots were trained. The Tuskegee Airmen had to face a great deal of hostility to succeed. Indeed, the old adage held true: they had to be twice as good to get half as much respect.

I’ll just summarize the basics. They flew out of North Africa, and then Italy, flying primarily as fighter escorts for bomber groups. They chose to paint their tails red, so that they could never be mistaken for another group. Although they never had an exceptional “kill” record, they had one which was even better. The whole purpose of a fighter escort isn’t to pursue enemy fighters, after all. It is to protect the bombers. The loss of a B-17 would mean up to 10 men - and potentially the mission.

The Red Tails ended the war with an amazing record:

Not ONE bomber lost to an enemy fighter.

(Bombers were lost to mechanical issues - and even more to anti-aircraft fire. But these were outside of the Red Tails’ control.)

This ability - and willingness - to stay in protection rather than seeking individual glory, made the Red Tails a highly coveted escort, and helped them break down the racial barriers within the armed forces.

The book is largely told from the perspectives of the pilots themselves. There are extensive and extended quotes, tied together with enough narrative to make a coherent story. Clearly, the author spent a lot of time interviewing the surviving members. It really makes the story come alive to hear of the good, the bad, and the ugly in their experiences.

And really, the story cannot be told without the issue of race being central. From the very beginning, there were those who abused their power to try to harass the Red Tails (and others in the military). Some Southern law enforcement officials would intentionally target black soldiers - and some, like Sheriff Pat Evans, would eventually become infamous for their brutal tactics later during the civil rights protests. One recurring theme is the refusal to allow African American officers to use the officers’ club and other facilities, despite the executive order from President Roosevelt that they were to be unsegregated.

On the other side, there were a number of white officers who volunteered to train the Red Tails, in the process sacrificing their own promotion opportunities. There are several men who won the undying admiration and respect of the black pilots for their fairness and advocacy in the face of personal cost.

It is hard to pick just a few incidents and people, but the following were good enough to stand out to me.

First, it was interesting just how badly Hollywood comes out in this book. There is no doubt that Hollywood has a longstanding history of discrimination against all minorities - and women - that continues today in a truly embarrassing manner. Still, it is worth noting that the “cowboy” era was quite literally, whitewashed by Hollywood. The very word itself, “cowboy” derives from the epithet for “negro,” and fully one fifth of cowboys were in fact black. However, there is nary a one to be seen in the average Western. Likewise, African Americans fought in the army throughout the latter half of the 19th Century, to be forced out during the Wilson years. Again, nary a mention.

Theodore Roosevelt is one of my favorite presidents for a number of reasons - some of which make me unpopular with the modern Right Wing - and one (forgotten) story is a reason why. TR gets credit for the battle of San Juan Hill - but his Rough Riders weren’t the real story. That belonged to the 10th Cavalry - the “Buffalo Soldiers.” The African Americans who were never given credit - their commander was rejected for honors.

At least TR was good enough to say at the time, “I could wish for none better. They can drink out of our canteens.” This was shocking at the time - and would remain so throughout the Jim Crow era. This was also just one of many cases in which blacks would be denied honors they richly deserved.

The book tells of Charles Bussey, one of the Red Tails, who later served in Korea. He at that time was in a ground-bound position, but nevertheless risked personal danger in a heroic effort. He was recommended for the Medal of Honor. However, it was downgraded, as was admitted to Bussey by the officer who did it.

I belong to a group who believe that it’s our responsibility to keep Negroes in their place, and the most effective way is to deny them leadership. Then there’s never any threat to anyone. If the medal was posthumous, no problem. Or if you were an inarticulate enlisted man, I would have no objection. But, being who you are, you’d be out encouraging Negroes to do the things you do.

Ironically, “Negroes” were considered to be “safe” in another context. When Alexander Jefferson was shot down and taken prisoner, he was chosen by some Southerners to be their roommate because at least they knew he wasn’t a German mole.

Bussey, by the way, was born in my adopted hometown of Bakersfield, CA. Back in the 1920s, it was a pretty bigoted place, by all accounts. Heck, we had active KKK chapters well into the 1980s. Not something to be proud of.

On the positive side, one person who came off extremely well was Eleanor Roosevelt. I will admit, I am not nearly as familiar with her as I should be. She was and is unfairly maligned within conservative circles, for her association with her New Deal husband, and her feminism. (Needless to say, I now find her feminism admirable.) However, it was interesting to see how involved she was in civil rights decades before it was remotely acceptable for a white woman to do so.

One incident recounted in the book is when she insisted on going on a flight with Tuskegee Airman “Chief” Anderson, much to the horror of the Secret Servicemen assigned to her. From that time on, she was the go-to person for African Americans seeking admission to the armed forces - and she came through. She wrote personal letters back, and usually apologized for the segregation still plaguing the military. One could even be so bold as to say that she was probably the single most important factor in the eventual desegregation order from her husband. I must admit I have a renewed appreciation for her after reading this book.

Like with so many worthwhile books, the power of this one is in the personal details. Sure, these guys were legitimate war heroes, and fully deserving of the honors they received - and many they did not receive due to the prejudice of the times. But it isn’t just that. What truly struck me as amazing was that these men suffered prejudice, harassment, criminal charges and imprisonment if they dared assert their right to use shared facilities, and more. Their country tried to prevent them from serving, for goodness sake!

And yet.

They faithfully served, and were clear headed enough to decide that Nazism was worse than the injustice they experienced at the hands of their countrymen. They sought the good of those who hated them, and gave exceptional service to protect those who wouldn’t even eat with them. That is truly amazing, and shows a strength of character that is inspiring.

Fun notes on the aircraft:

My favorite WWII fighter is the Spitfire. Still one of the prettiest aircraft ever built. Second choice would be the F4U Corsair, for the elegant gull wings. On the other hand, there was something special about seeing a Hawker Sea Fury in person at the Shafter fly-in several years ago. That huge radial engine had a distinctive sound.

The Red Tails flew four different aircraft. The first was the P-40, already obsolete by the time they got them. In fact, some of their aircraft were from the Flying Tigers (the American Volunteer Group who fought in China against Japan before the US entered the war) and were barely airworthy by that point. Later, they flew the P-47 Thunderbolt, a heavy but durable aircraft, and the unusual P-39 Aircobra, with the engine behind the cockpit. (The P-39, oddly, was credited with more kills than any other US fighter, but is considered more of a curiosity today.) Finally, they got the legendary P-51 Mustang, arguably the greatest fighter of the era. 

P-40 with the Flying Tiger graphics. I still love this plane. 

P-47 Thunderbolt

P-39 Aircobra

 P-51 Mustang - Red Tail livery

Note on the Flying Tigers:

I wrote a report on the Flying Tigers when I was in high school after reading a book (the name eludes me) written by one of their pilots. I found them fascinating enough to build a model P-40 and give a report to our homeschool group. Later, my parents would meet the late “Tex” Hill on a Southwest Airlines flight. Yes I was jealous.

Even later than that, however, I got to talk with my wife’s late grandfather, who was an Army doctor serving in China during the same period. He treated some of the Flying Tigers during their stay, and could remember Claire Chennault reasonably well. (Pappy Boynton apparently wasn’t quite as memorable, alas.) Dr. Haut still had his commendation from Chaing Kai-shek, in the original Chinese, which caused a great stir at their favorite local Chinese restaurant. Good stuff.

Note on the sordid history of law enforcement as terrorism against African Americans:

This is beyond the scope of this post, but I think it is foolish to approach cases like Ferguson without having an idea of the history behind the current problems. This book touches on some bad experiences, where law enforcement flagrantly defied the law, military authority, and basic human decency. It is thus unsurprising to find that this persists today, and that modern law enforcement - which is rarely held accountable - continues the same pattern.

Settling Down

Time flies so fast. This month marks 10 years since we moved into our current home.

This is the longest that I have ever lived in any one place. In fact, it has been longer by a good bit. The previous record was all of 7 years. (That’s just how life, jobs, and circumstances worked out.)

I was thinking about this lately, because I am not one who embraces change. I am, shall we say, a bit of a stick-in-the-mud when it comes to the foundational elements of my life. I like adventure, but I like my home to be there when I am done. I am not a natural risk taker, as my wife had noted quite often. I am a “plodder,” not a conqueror. (The fact that I actually started my own law practice has to be a surprise to anyone who knows me - myself included.)

So, it is interesting to find myself in middle age, having attained a degree of stability that I probably always craved, but never truly was sure of having.

It isn’t just the house, either.

I grew up (mostly) in the Los Angeles area. San Fernando Valley to be more specific. (Think Moon Unit Zappa’s “Valley Girl.” I still talk a bit “like” that.) Still, I lived there from age 3 to 16. (Also from birth to 2, but I don’t remember that much.) That’s 13 years in more or less the same town. I’ve made it 16 in Bakersfield. Time flies.

I realized too that it has been more than 12 years since I opened my office. Nearly two decades in the Symphony. Nearly 12 years since I became a father. And nearly 14 years since I married the lovely Amanda.

The most surprising, though, I think has to be the fact that I have attended the same church for over 15 years. That’s pretty unprecedented. I think the longest our family ever attended the same church must have been 4 or 5 years when I was really young. The others have all been 3 years or fewer. Some of those were due to geographical moves, but more happened because of bad situations. So, I really do have to credit the good people (and good leadership) at our current home as a significant reason why we have been able to stay.

I suppose it does feel a little weird to look back and see a longer period of stability than I expected. I’ve “settled down” so to speak.

Actually, if I think about it, I am - in my own way - living my dream. I did in fact imagine a house in the suburbs, full of the world’s best kids, a beautiful and loving wife, enough free time for books and hiking and field trips and music. We all have our dreams, and mine is perhaps a bit mundane, but it’s mine after all.

Here’s to “settlin’ down” and the ordinary life...

Kindred by Octavia Butler

Source of book: Borrowed from the library

Every year since I started my series of book reviews, I have taken the time in February to observe Black History Month, and read a book by an African American author. Here are the past selections:

Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison (2014)

The Souls of Black Folk by W. E. B. Du Bois (2013)

Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston (2012)

50 Years and Other Poems by James Weldon Johnson (2011)

This year, I am also reading a few other books related to the African American experience, although they were written by whites, so they don’t count toward my project. These books are:

The Civil War as a Theological Crisis by Mark Noll

Red Tails, Black Wings by John Holway

I have also read and reviewed a few related books in the past, Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, Purple Hibiscus by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (by an African novelist), and The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas (whose grandmother was a an Afro-Caribbean slave.)

***

Kindred was recommended to my by my cousin-in-law, who teaches high school English, and shares a love of poetry and the power of the story with me. She uses this book as part of her own curriculum, and felt that it was good for connecting younger readers with the realities of the past through a riveting story.

I must say, I agree. I enjoyed the book thoroughly (although enjoyed may be the wrong word for a book with a harrowing account of life as a slave), and had difficulty putting it down.

Technically, Kindred is a science fiction book. It managed to be placed in the general fiction section of our library, despite Butler’s reputation as a SciFi writer. She herself felt it was more of a “grim fantasy” because she did not resort to science to explain the time travel elements of the book. While Kindred remains her most popular novel, she won multiple Hugo and Nebula awards for her other fiction. SciFi tends to be dominated by white males, so her accomplishments are doubly impressive. 

The plot of the book is interesting. Dana, an African American woman, has recently moved with her white husband, Kevin to a new home, when she passes out and comes to in 1815 Maryland. As she later is able to determine, she is summoned by Rufus Weylin, the son of a slave owner - and one of Dana’s ancestors. It appears that when Rufus is about to die, Dana is summoned to save him. She returns to her own time whenever she fears for her own life. Like many a time travel plot before, she finds little time has passed in her own time.

While in Antebellum Maryland, Dana (and on one trip, her husband) experience the horrors of slavery. Because she is alone and out of her time, Dana cannot directly control her experiences, and must both suffer what comes and compromise with her modern beliefs in her own dignity and humanity in order to survive. Thus, she must submit to slavery and the groveling that goes along with it, suffer beatings, and do what she must in order that she keep Rufus (and thus her future self) alive.

This is particularly uncomfortable because Rufus has to take his slave Alice (formerly free, but enslaved after she helped her husband - a slave - escape) as his concubine. One of their children will be Dana’s ancestor, so it has to happen. But that really requires that Rufus rape Alice, and Dana kind of has to avoid preventing this. Real fun.

But of course, isn’t this the same dilemma faced by slave women? Should they submit? Or should they run or attempt to kill their master, knowing either would result in death? And this is just one of the issues faced. One must survive. And so, as slaves have always done, they adapt to stay alive.

On a related note, Butler portrays the slaves that go along with the system in a sympathetic light too. (Apparently, she did so in response to a young activist who couldn’t understand why the older generations went along with injustice.)

It was striking that both Rufus and his father Tom aren’t caricatures. Unlike, say, Simon Legree, they are not evil incarnate. They are not really worse than average, although they are perhaps a bit uncouth. Tom isn’t gratuitously brutal, but feels he must punish runaways or the whole of his wealth will crumble. It isn’t about about sadism, but about doing what was expected within an evil system. Thus, to a degree, Tom and Rufus are sympathetic, and this is a disturbing problem. They would have been normal, decent people in their time, but they still inflict great damage on their “property.”

I found it interesting the battle between the past and the “present” in both Dana and Kevin. Kindred was written in 1979, and Butler knew well that interracial marriage - even in the California of the late 1970s - was frowned on. Heck, it wasn’t even permitted in most northern states until the Loving Supreme Court case repealed laws forbidding it in 1967 - a mere 12 yeras before this book was written. Still, Dana and Kevin are both progressive sorts, believing in equality between the races - and the sexes. For both of them, it is a serious culture shock.

But what bothers them both is how easy it was for them to accept and acquiesce to the past reality. By necessity, Kevin and Dana pretend that they are master and slave, although everyone (rightly) assumes that they are also lovers. This bothers Kevin enough that after he is stranded without Dana for a five year period, he moves north to avoid having to completely compromise his beliefs. In some ways, he feels that he is at more risk than she is, because he is in a position of privilege.

Butler draws out another key issue by using this tension. Dana fully expects to be treated as a human being. But she is viewed as subhuman by those around her in her trip to the past. Both whites and blacks alike accuse her of “acting white” because she insists on being treated with some degree of dignity. For Rufus, this is maddeningly difficult, even though he knows Dana’s real nature, and Dana repeatedly finds herself in trouble because she cannot bring herself to lower herself at all times.

No one should think, though, that this was merely a problem in the past. As recent events around our nation have proven, it is still deadly dangerous for a young African American male to insist on being treated like a human being - like a man - by authority figures. “Bring it, you fucking animals!” was said proudly on live camera, betraying the still widespread view of blacks as subhuman and unworthy of the dignity accorded to whites. “Acting white” still has its consequences. (Seriously, it doesn’t take all that long to figure it out if you actually listen to the experiences of African American colleagues and friends.)

While Butler didn’t shy away from social commentary on her own, modern times, she also seemed optimistic about the future. Even though Dana’s relatives were unhappy with the possibility that her property could be inherited by and white man, and Kevin’s relatives refused to accept a black family member; despite even the obnoxious behavior of many around them after they became a couple; Dana and Kevin represent the future. A future that we continue to work toward. When my parents married, interracial marriage was barely legal, and for most, unthinkable. The few that did so often suffered rejection by their families. Now, one in twelve marriages is interracial, and the numbers are undoubtedly higher in my native state of California. I see more and more that the stigma is fading, and I believe it will continue to do so for my children, for whom mixed-race friends - and mixed race families - are the norm, not the exception.

Kindred is a compelling and unflinching look at the past. Most of us learn best through stories, and I think that is why this book was so moving. More than any textbook description, even more than the pictures of slaves scarred by beating, a story like this can and will bring out the reality in a way that feels real. Abraham Lincoln once greeted Harriet Beecher Stowe as “the little woman who started this great war.” There is little doubt that Uncle Tom’s Cabin did more than any academic argument to stir up opposition to slavery. For those of us seeking to understand the slave experience and its lingering effects today, stories like Kindred are a vital resource, and as necessary to us today as Stowe’s book was 160 years ago. Stories that give voice to the African American female, both the author and the narrator, are even more vital, given the domination of the discussion by white males in times past - and all too often our own.

Note on young readers:

I read a lot of crazy stuff when I was young. So did my wife. I would not consider myself particularly sheltered. That said, I would be hesitant to introduce this book to a younger reader. High school would be a great age. Maybe 8th grade for a mature reader who isn’t too prone to nightmares.

Many things have been called “adult” as a euphemism for smutty. I would label this book as dealing with adult themes, and thus best suited for those who can handle some degree of intensity. It is a real page turner, and yet it is also hard to bear for an extended period. I found myself having to take a turn about the yard to clear my head a few times, because it was overwhelming. Obviously, this is a sign of a well-written story. But it is also a testament to the power with which Butler brings her world alive.

I do intend to introduce my children to this book - but when they are a little older.