When the term “defund the police” went more mainstream in the wake of George Floyd’s death, many people were caught off guard by the intention of the movement and what it really meant.
My favorite part of this piece: “ I do not feel that I have the right to criticize the terminology, because I did not create the movement and it’s not my place to name it. But, it is my place now to help the movement and I want to do that well.”
We white people, especially those of us who haven’t been a part of this struggle from the beginning, need to focus on asking “how can I help”. If we attempt to co-opt, rename and redefine this struggle, we’re operating as part of the system of white supremacy that has always tried to package and rebrand the struggle for liberation in a form that’s more comfortable for white consumption.
The following is all my personal opinion. I have no special qualifications and am white and over 40. As you may have guessed, I do think that the slogan is problematic. But maybe not for the reasons you may think. We teach children from a young age the power of language. How words can help or heal. How important it is to communicate and to say what you mean to avoid misunderstanding. For those that go into marketing language and slogans can make or break a product. The unfortunate reality is is that many adults - young and old - will not educate themselves . They will hear the slogan and assign their own beliefs into it. I have sent Trump supporters articles and have literally been told they DON’T WANT to read it- don’t want to educate themselves. That’s problem one. Problem two and the bigger issue I foresee is that we have a real opportunity to get some conservatives and some actual police force to help with this issue. The conservatives will get their back up and the police forces will look at this as another burden. The good officers will probably welcome these reforms so why alienate them with a slogan? We can do better. The one thing that Trump is good at is marketing his evil ideas into “national dreams”. We need to be as good - marketing our dreams and ideals for a better America . One that appeals to our similarities and mutual goals. If we can get conservatives and some police to help with reform we will succeed. Again my own personal opinions here.
Stop trying to market black people telling the system to stop killing them. The point is to make you uncomfortable. You shouldn’t be comfortable. People have been dying for decades and it’s crickets. Black people don’t owe you comfort when the system y’all have either created or benefited from is killing them and traumatizing the ones that make it.
That’s not what I meant and am surprised that’s what the takeaway was. And it’s not for my comfort. The question was asked and I did learn what the phrase meant. There are a LOT of people who will be uncomfortable and walk away. What good does that do? Who does that help? Are you willing for an idea to take years to take hold because people won’t listen to it just because it’s not articulated or formulated? As far as “marketing” that’s what Obama’s “hope” campaign was. I didn’t say anyone owed me comfort. I’m trying to help the cause. But you don’t have to listen .
In short, yes, I think it is disorienting. Maybe "refocus the police" or something like that. I don't blame people for seeing "defund" and going "wait a minute, this sounds a little extreme." And we know that most people won't bother digging more deeply to find out what is really meant by this.
At what point when reports of “defund education”, “defund healthcare” “defund the arts” came out did anyone think or say that meant NO schools, NO hospitals and NO museums? They didn’t, we didn’t because that’s not what defund actually means. And we already know that.
Attacking the “term”, the “word” - changing verbiage to make it “better/ easier” is part of the problem. It is an underhanded way of once again watering down and silencing Black Americans. Because defund doesn’t mean abolish. That’s rhetoric from people who are against systemic changes.
I agree and this makes total sense to me, but we have to recognize that the average American is not this elevated when it comes to deciphering slogans or concepts. They also don't invest the time into finding out more and they want to be spoon fed. I am torn between wanting to raise the level of discourse, but also knowing that will fail to appeal to the masses. This is such a hard issue.
I think it’s a broad sweep to say that if people oppose the slogan they are trying to silence Black Americans. Perhaps they are just trying to reach people from a different perspective because they KNOW people who won’t do the education.
I have to say, the term defund really turned me off until I took the time to research the concept last weekend. If the activists who created this concept want this to be mainstream, they truly should consider a new label so that this nation can support their cause. Which is now a cause for America.
Regardless of where it goes it has served the purpose to get a reaction from white people. We’ve been talking about micro reforms forever. We’ve been talking about the problem with the unions, with brutality, with funding services, education, infrastructure, etc. Black men keep dying. But change the conversation to DEFUND THE POLICE and all of a sudden white America feels threatened enough to correct, judge, parse the language? Uh, sorry not sorry.
Defund the police because while white America may look at the police as who we call when there’s a threat to our safety black Americans see the police as the threat. And for fear of saying the quiet part out loud that means white Americans see black Americans as a safety threat and think they need the police to protect them from that threat.
Look they could have said Black Lives Matter Too and made all of us white people a lot more comfortable. Saying straight up Black Lives Matter and having us deal with no lives matter until we say black ones do, was not the easy marketing message but it was the right one.
If defunding the police threatens you then maybe check your privilege.
Apparently in 2018 Trump proposed reducing funding for the police. Could be an interesting thing to look into.
As for opinions on defunding the police, I think the main thing is that I would like to see the media discuss this with experts. How much do the police cost? What are they currently tasked with doing? Could those things be accomplished "better" (cost, outcome, justice served, etc) in a different way? What are the various proposals for "defund the police?"
That's what I'd like to see and I really hope Shero and the media can deliver. And it would be good to see those stories linked here - all of which you've done here but it will take time to get this to happen so I hope we'll see it continued in the years ahead. And I know you focus on women's issues (which is fantastic) and how issues with the police and criminal justice affect women would be great to see here. Definitely things to amplify.
The term scares (white) people because many do not bother even thinking it through for one second. But if it were "HELP THE POLICE BY GIVING THEM LESS TO DO" or some flowery term, the same people would still have an issue with it (and probably reply: DO LESS CRIMES, THEN THE POLICE WILL HAVE LESS TO DO!).
I don't know that the movement will win the hearts and minds of those unwilling to examine the meaning of the moniker. Or that it has to. Maybe I am being myopic, but I think enough people are willing to look beyond how the concept is branded.
A friend of mine had what I thought was the perfect explanation of why this is not a "winning slogan": If you have to explain it, you're already losing the argument.
Let's not forget, millions of voters get their news from the Grifter-in-Chief (the "GIC"), or his propaganda arms, Fox News and OANN. How do you think that THEY are going to spin this? I may understand what it means. You may understand what it means. But, for millions of people out there, this term will be interpreted as meaning "lawlessness", and you can be sure that Fox News, OANN and the GIC will beat them in the head with that false narrative.
*We* Dems are willing to get details and understand. The rest of the country, not so much. This slogan will be weaponized and distract from the issue. We'll be so busy explaining, that we'll be losing. BLM is a great slogan. DTP is not.
I love the passion and the honesty of the woman at the end of Oliver's show: "You're lucky we're not lookin' for revenge." She's so damn right. Soooo right. We, us white folk, are so lucky our minority brothers and sisters want equality and not revenge, cuz God knows, we OWE them.
There is not a single time I see a person of color anywhere that I don't remember that I OWE them. The very LEAST I owe them is my respect, to treat them as equals, to remember that I have a debt to pay merely by virtue of the color of MY skin. To remember that my ancestors - the ones who came over in the 1600s - benefited either directly or indirectly from slavery. To remember that anyone with a light skin color and anglo-saxon ancestry has been benefiting ever since. I, and my fellow white folk, owe so much to our "minority" brethren, that most of us cannot repay in a lifetime.
Sorry, watching the Oliver show just struck a chord in me, one that has resonated ever since I realized that I am grossly over-privileged merely because of my skin color. My answer to the defunding question, though, is that the people most involved in this issue are those that get to direct the narrative. If "defund the police" is the slogan they've chosen, I'll wave that baby around 'til my arms hurt. I'll explain that to every well-meaning but clueless white person I know. I'll champion that every bit as much as "Black Lives Matter." It's definitely not MY place to tell my sisters and brothers of color what words to use.
When the black lives matter movement came out, I researched what it meant. I now do my best to support it and defend it to the all lives matter people. I do not feel it is my place to criticize the terminology. I’m here to learn and support.
With “defund the police”, I’ll admit that my first thoughts were “wow, that seems aggressive” but even doing a quick read, I was able to understand the meaning. Those who really want to understand a movement will research past the terminology, those who don’t, or who are against the movement, will focus on the name.
Black people will not end racism. White people have to. So i appreciate Amee taking on that message of educating because we are tired of “educating” when we’re really being ignored. Check yourself if you have a problem with defund the police. When republicans said defund PP we knew it wouldn’t end PP but it would definitely have an adverse effect. And that’s what we want. We don’t want you to be comfortable. You have been for too long.
For a lot of people, perception is reality. I know what it means but had to explain it to the significant other. It DOES need to be renamed for clarities sake. I do a LOT of work for rural sheriffs & fire depts. in what would be deemed 'trump country'. They pretty much are overworked, underpaid & unappreciated. They are expected to know anything and everything about anything & everything. They are very diverse departments in gender & race and do not seem to have these kind of issues that cities have. Is it because sheriff's are elected and have to answer for their deputies at election time? I don't know. But they either by design or accident already do a pretty good job of community policing. I have sat thru some calls that are pretty horrific and there are situations outside of most peoples expertise, but they are on the spot and expected to handle it. I honestly think most are just like everyone else and just want to do a good job and go home alive at the end of the shift. Reform would be a much better word, and it would involve every part of government to support as well as citizens to also step up and take on some responsibilities. For those who dislike my view, I know I am biased because of the LEO work I do, but I do see the need for changes. Just don't expect to dump it on the police departments/cities and expect it to work. You need to stay involved as well. It will only work if both sides are committed and act responsibly.
The criticism comes from those who fear the slogan and resulting discussion become the issue rather than discussing and correcting the real issues of many police departments. Addressing and correcting the problems that have become glaringly obvious is of utmost Importance. Please lets not get lost in an ambiguous slogan. When you find yourself defending a slogan, you are losing. I think it is the goal of all of us to address and end the problems. Starting with removing mental health issues from the things addressed by the police. Also, responding to traffic accidents and writing reports, addressing Counterfeit money..... creating national registry of abusive policemen, one incident and you are off the force, charged if it involves assault.....See how easy it is to move to real issues once you can move on from an ambiguous slogan.
I get what you are saying but again I will reiterate to remember the power of language in getting an idea across. I sincerely wish everyone would take the time to learn what this means. The sad fact is - they won’t.
My favorite part of this piece: “ I do not feel that I have the right to criticize the terminology, because I did not create the movement and it’s not my place to name it. But, it is my place now to help the movement and I want to do that well.”
We white people, especially those of us who haven’t been a part of this struggle from the beginning, need to focus on asking “how can I help”. If we attempt to co-opt, rename and redefine this struggle, we’re operating as part of the system of white supremacy that has always tried to package and rebrand the struggle for liberation in a form that’s more comfortable for white consumption.
Thank you for saying that, I never know if I am accurately getting my point across.
The following is all my personal opinion. I have no special qualifications and am white and over 40. As you may have guessed, I do think that the slogan is problematic. But maybe not for the reasons you may think. We teach children from a young age the power of language. How words can help or heal. How important it is to communicate and to say what you mean to avoid misunderstanding. For those that go into marketing language and slogans can make or break a product. The unfortunate reality is is that many adults - young and old - will not educate themselves . They will hear the slogan and assign their own beliefs into it. I have sent Trump supporters articles and have literally been told they DON’T WANT to read it- don’t want to educate themselves. That’s problem one. Problem two and the bigger issue I foresee is that we have a real opportunity to get some conservatives and some actual police force to help with this issue. The conservatives will get their back up and the police forces will look at this as another burden. The good officers will probably welcome these reforms so why alienate them with a slogan? We can do better. The one thing that Trump is good at is marketing his evil ideas into “national dreams”. We need to be as good - marketing our dreams and ideals for a better America . One that appeals to our similarities and mutual goals. If we can get conservatives and some police to help with reform we will succeed. Again my own personal opinions here.
Stop trying to market black people telling the system to stop killing them. The point is to make you uncomfortable. You shouldn’t be comfortable. People have been dying for decades and it’s crickets. Black people don’t owe you comfort when the system y’all have either created or benefited from is killing them and traumatizing the ones that make it.
That’s not what I meant and am surprised that’s what the takeaway was. And it’s not for my comfort. The question was asked and I did learn what the phrase meant. There are a LOT of people who will be uncomfortable and walk away. What good does that do? Who does that help? Are you willing for an idea to take years to take hold because people won’t listen to it just because it’s not articulated or formulated? As far as “marketing” that’s what Obama’s “hope” campaign was. I didn’t say anyone owed me comfort. I’m trying to help the cause. But you don’t have to listen .
In short, yes, I think it is disorienting. Maybe "refocus the police" or something like that. I don't blame people for seeing "defund" and going "wait a minute, this sounds a little extreme." And we know that most people won't bother digging more deeply to find out what is really meant by this.
At what point when reports of “defund education”, “defund healthcare” “defund the arts” came out did anyone think or say that meant NO schools, NO hospitals and NO museums? They didn’t, we didn’t because that’s not what defund actually means. And we already know that.
Attacking the “term”, the “word” - changing verbiage to make it “better/ easier” is part of the problem. It is an underhanded way of once again watering down and silencing Black Americans. Because defund doesn’t mean abolish. That’s rhetoric from people who are against systemic changes.
I agree and this makes total sense to me, but we have to recognize that the average American is not this elevated when it comes to deciphering slogans or concepts. They also don't invest the time into finding out more and they want to be spoon fed. I am torn between wanting to raise the level of discourse, but also knowing that will fail to appeal to the masses. This is such a hard issue.
I don't know, "defund" sure sounds like removing funds, per common use of "de-".
from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/DE :
de- prefix
Definition of de- (Entry 2 of 2)
1 a: do the opposite of
deactivate
b: reverse of
de-emphasis
2 a: remove (a specified thing) from
delouse
b: remove from (a specified thing)
dethrone
3: reduce
devalue
4: something derived from (a specified thing)
decompound
: derived from something (of a specified nature)
denominative
5: get off of (a specified thing)
detrain
6: having a molecule characterized by the removal of one or more atoms (of a specified element)
deoxy-
I think it’s a broad sweep to say that if people oppose the slogan they are trying to silence Black Americans. Perhaps they are just trying to reach people from a different perspective because they KNOW people who won’t do the education.
I have to say, the term defund really turned me off until I took the time to research the concept last weekend. If the activists who created this concept want this to be mainstream, they truly should consider a new label so that this nation can support their cause. Which is now a cause for America.
Why do we have to make you comfortable about the fact that we’re dying?
The topic here is the term defund police.
Regardless of where it goes it has served the purpose to get a reaction from white people. We’ve been talking about micro reforms forever. We’ve been talking about the problem with the unions, with brutality, with funding services, education, infrastructure, etc. Black men keep dying. But change the conversation to DEFUND THE POLICE and all of a sudden white America feels threatened enough to correct, judge, parse the language? Uh, sorry not sorry.
Defund the police because while white America may look at the police as who we call when there’s a threat to our safety black Americans see the police as the threat. And for fear of saying the quiet part out loud that means white Americans see black Americans as a safety threat and think they need the police to protect them from that threat.
Look they could have said Black Lives Matter Too and made all of us white people a lot more comfortable. Saying straight up Black Lives Matter and having us deal with no lives matter until we say black ones do, was not the easy marketing message but it was the right one.
If defunding the police threatens you then maybe check your privilege.
However this plays out we don’t
Apparently in 2018 Trump proposed reducing funding for the police. Could be an interesting thing to look into.
As for opinions on defunding the police, I think the main thing is that I would like to see the media discuss this with experts. How much do the police cost? What are they currently tasked with doing? Could those things be accomplished "better" (cost, outcome, justice served, etc) in a different way? What are the various proposals for "defund the police?"
That's what I'd like to see and I really hope Shero and the media can deliver. And it would be good to see those stories linked here - all of which you've done here but it will take time to get this to happen so I hope we'll see it continued in the years ahead. And I know you focus on women's issues (which is fantastic) and how issues with the police and criminal justice affect women would be great to see here. Definitely things to amplify.
The term scares (white) people because many do not bother even thinking it through for one second. But if it were "HELP THE POLICE BY GIVING THEM LESS TO DO" or some flowery term, the same people would still have an issue with it (and probably reply: DO LESS CRIMES, THEN THE POLICE WILL HAVE LESS TO DO!).
I don't know that the movement will win the hearts and minds of those unwilling to examine the meaning of the moniker. Or that it has to. Maybe I am being myopic, but I think enough people are willing to look beyond how the concept is branded.
A friend of mine had what I thought was the perfect explanation of why this is not a "winning slogan": If you have to explain it, you're already losing the argument.
Let's not forget, millions of voters get their news from the Grifter-in-Chief (the "GIC"), or his propaganda arms, Fox News and OANN. How do you think that THEY are going to spin this? I may understand what it means. You may understand what it means. But, for millions of people out there, this term will be interpreted as meaning "lawlessness", and you can be sure that Fox News, OANN and the GIC will beat them in the head with that false narrative.
*We* Dems are willing to get details and understand. The rest of the country, not so much. This slogan will be weaponized and distract from the issue. We'll be so busy explaining, that we'll be losing. BLM is a great slogan. DTP is not.
I love the passion and the honesty of the woman at the end of Oliver's show: "You're lucky we're not lookin' for revenge." She's so damn right. Soooo right. We, us white folk, are so lucky our minority brothers and sisters want equality and not revenge, cuz God knows, we OWE them.
There is not a single time I see a person of color anywhere that I don't remember that I OWE them. The very LEAST I owe them is my respect, to treat them as equals, to remember that I have a debt to pay merely by virtue of the color of MY skin. To remember that my ancestors - the ones who came over in the 1600s - benefited either directly or indirectly from slavery. To remember that anyone with a light skin color and anglo-saxon ancestry has been benefiting ever since. I, and my fellow white folk, owe so much to our "minority" brethren, that most of us cannot repay in a lifetime.
Sorry, watching the Oliver show just struck a chord in me, one that has resonated ever since I realized that I am grossly over-privileged merely because of my skin color. My answer to the defunding question, though, is that the people most involved in this issue are those that get to direct the narrative. If "defund the police" is the slogan they've chosen, I'll wave that baby around 'til my arms hurt. I'll explain that to every well-meaning but clueless white person I know. I'll champion that every bit as much as "Black Lives Matter." It's definitely not MY place to tell my sisters and brothers of color what words to use.
Demilitarize and Reimagine/Redefine Policing?
When the black lives matter movement came out, I researched what it meant. I now do my best to support it and defend it to the all lives matter people. I do not feel it is my place to criticize the terminology. I’m here to learn and support.
With “defund the police”, I’ll admit that my first thoughts were “wow, that seems aggressive” but even doing a quick read, I was able to understand the meaning. Those who really want to understand a movement will research past the terminology, those who don’t, or who are against the movement, will focus on the name.
Black people will not end racism. White people have to. So i appreciate Amee taking on that message of educating because we are tired of “educating” when we’re really being ignored. Check yourself if you have a problem with defund the police. When republicans said defund PP we knew it wouldn’t end PP but it would definitely have an adverse effect. And that’s what we want. We don’t want you to be comfortable. You have been for too long.
For a lot of people, perception is reality. I know what it means but had to explain it to the significant other. It DOES need to be renamed for clarities sake. I do a LOT of work for rural sheriffs & fire depts. in what would be deemed 'trump country'. They pretty much are overworked, underpaid & unappreciated. They are expected to know anything and everything about anything & everything. They are very diverse departments in gender & race and do not seem to have these kind of issues that cities have. Is it because sheriff's are elected and have to answer for their deputies at election time? I don't know. But they either by design or accident already do a pretty good job of community policing. I have sat thru some calls that are pretty horrific and there are situations outside of most peoples expertise, but they are on the spot and expected to handle it. I honestly think most are just like everyone else and just want to do a good job and go home alive at the end of the shift. Reform would be a much better word, and it would involve every part of government to support as well as citizens to also step up and take on some responsibilities. For those who dislike my view, I know I am biased because of the LEO work I do, but I do see the need for changes. Just don't expect to dump it on the police departments/cities and expect it to work. You need to stay involved as well. It will only work if both sides are committed and act responsibly.
The criticism comes from those who fear the slogan and resulting discussion become the issue rather than discussing and correcting the real issues of many police departments. Addressing and correcting the problems that have become glaringly obvious is of utmost Importance. Please lets not get lost in an ambiguous slogan. When you find yourself defending a slogan, you are losing. I think it is the goal of all of us to address and end the problems. Starting with removing mental health issues from the things addressed by the police. Also, responding to traffic accidents and writing reports, addressing Counterfeit money..... creating national registry of abusive policemen, one incident and you are off the force, charged if it involves assault.....See how easy it is to move to real issues once you can move on from an ambiguous slogan.
I get what you are saying but again I will reiterate to remember the power of language in getting an idea across. I sincerely wish everyone would take the time to learn what this means. The sad fact is - they won’t.