A great deal of uncertainty looms as Minneapolis prepares for the prosecution of Derek Chauvin. Protesters march for the eradication of systemic injustices in policing but failed to establish uniformity on the same issue. Some argue Chauvin should face life imprisonment. Others suggest a hefty prison sentence without the possibility of reestablishing the Minneapolis Police Department. In addition, there is the inconvenient truth of radical rogue actors out there arguing Chauvin deserves nothing short of death outside the courtroom. Any sensible person understands & appreciates that fringe elements are hardly representative of the majority, particularly when the cause at hand is centered on redefining civil rights in America. Activists arguing for permanent disbandment of the MPD have assumed ideological consolation in boisterous conviction. Perhaps a thought experiment is in order?
What would happen if Frey fully heeded the demands of the anti-policers throughout the duration of Chauvin’s trial? Who would guarantee his safety? Under such radically changed circumstances, would it even be remotely possible? What assurances in the form of proactive initiatives could be implemented by anti-policers to control their own radicals from throwing homemade Molotovs at Chauvin’s motorcade? If the past is any indication of the present, it’s that one unintended consequence applied in destructive vanity can hijack the course of history. The aftermath of Floyd’s death is a case-in-point, but will history remember his killing as a circumstantial institutional death or impersonal systemic murder? On the other hand, if the courts produce a sentence not deemed worthy to the same body of activists, what crowd control protocol will they issue when protesters transform into unruly mobs?
What promises can be kept when a fine line separates the worst-case scenario from happening with the future of civil rights at stake? To dig deeper on the bigger picture, it must be realized the idea of American exceptionalism is hardly exclusive to right-wingers. Left liberal activists get caught in the same fray subconsciously. Irrespective of ideological divide, the same body of activists are convinced that in some way, shape, or form America remains the world’s freest & wealthiest nation absolutely in all its unbridled power. Yet, how many have stopped to self-prosecute that same existential expectation quietly corroborated by generations of Americans, Millennials included? Is American exceptionalism the result of blind faith in a failed system that has fundamentally defaulted on creating demographic equity in the post-Civil Rights era? Regardless of Chauvin’s trial outcome, what long term solutions are the courts prepared to adopt to make the “American Dream” accessible again for the most demographically marginalized?
Chauvin’s poor choice of actions are indeed inexcusable, but how will lessons learned going forward from his trial & ultimate sentencing inspire the possibility of a new & more desirable future? This particularly applies to the most demographically challenged in our inner-city communities nationwide. What role will activists play in shaping what is otherwise a denied future through failed generational deliverance? How much easier will it be for a youth of color from a broken household growing up in a poverty-stricken inner-city community to become the next Elon Musk if Chauvin is sentenced to life in prison? For this reason, justice must transcend the courtroom. American exceptionalism is American denialism. The reality we ignore is that America is a nation quintessentially defined by socio-economic access. This is what separates the haves from have nots. Until this existential disparity is acknowledged, it will never be resolved.
It will only be a matter of time until another demographically challenged person meets a similar fate as Floyd in a near albeit not too distant future if we fail to conceptually redefine America from the “demographic-up.” The University of Minnesota began offering the possibility of free tuition for families earning less than 50k annually. Why has the same body of activists failed to stage protests at the U of M Twin Cities Campus to expand its tuition free threshold to households earning less than 100k per annum with a focus on demographically challenged & marginalized families? Activism should be more than organized rage bordering on implosive angst.
Now more than ever, the nation requires a “solution-based-activism” where anecdotalism is abandoned for holistic futures made possible from the bottom up. What better place to start than Minnesota against the backdrop of Chauvin’s trial aftermath?