I remember listening to Professor Lumpin so closely. "This man is so smart" and a "terrific reader" I would think. I remember the time that he read Fanshine overnight. He came into class totally stoked on William Hinton's stories. The starving Chinese peasants' story to break with their ancient ideology's landlord-versus-peasant relationships kept my attention.
Starvation cultivates critical thinking in the right circumstances. For the revolutionary Chinese peasants, this meant that they broke with tradition going back 10,000 years to the agrarian revolution. From the fertile banks of the Euripides in today's Iraq to the village of Fanshine, labor created wealth. Labor generated profit created by turning soil and sun into surplus value. Food storage and its guardians were needed. History would not, probably could not, have had it otherwise. From the growth of the clan to the emergence of the nation state, surplus value needed to be guarded. I was impressed with Professor Lumpin's recounting of China's revolutionary changes through this micro-story of the nation state turning upside down. Starvation has a way of destroying the subordination of peasants to ideology.
On another day, another subject, I heard him say it, and I heard him say it again, and then again even later. "I hate cops." "Wow, what's this about?" I wondered. Lumpkin did not give much reason for this hate, other than that the cops had somehow mishandled him and others. I could see how someone without much education might make a blanket statement like this, but a sociology professor? What a generalization, and from what sort of stereotype does this hate arise?
I knew from my own teenage years that my rights had been violated by the police, rights that go to the heart of being an American citizen. I had been accused of a deed that I had not done, a deed that I was incapable of performing. Just the same, the cops walked right into my bedroom without invitation to my home, and ordered me to get dressed. This was foul I knew and I knew that they were wrong. In the following hour I could easily have become a "juvenile delinquent," but I did not. I could see from this experience, though, how people come to "hate cops" ("Constable on Patrol' as the British put it).
I did not lose my admiration for the professor, but I did discount his objectivity while continuing to trust his academic skills.
Now I'm thinking that societies have always needed "cops" since the agrarian revolution. How else could the ruling elite keep their surplus wheat, their surplus goods once extracted from the labor of the weaker, landless classes? Without cops, without some sort of repressive apparatus civilization as we know it would not exist. People do not share wealth as if they were Jesus Christ. That was the whole point of "Giving unto Caesar," keeping the peace between the haves and have nots. Granted, Roman soldiers were not cops, but their role was pretty much the same, to repress uprisings generated by the theft of surplus value from the fields. Fanshin's peasants were not repressed by soldiers; they were supresed by the dominant ideology. Either soldiers or ideology will do the job for the ruling elite. Social control is quite simple in this regard.
Moving fast-forward from the agrarian revolution to the Industrial Revolution, British cops in the 19th century spent their "graveyard" shifts rousting the poor and homeless from park benches, from alleys and porches. There were the surplus working poor, the "surplus army of labor" needed for union busting and wage control.
This surplus army of labor needed to be controlled. So it was understood that in London, no one sits at night. "Keep them moving" was the order to the British cops. For the poor and homeless, night time was hell. A sleepless period of moving about, zombie-like, followed the Sun's setting for both adults and children. I can see how the homeless working class and lumpen-proletariat came to "hate cops" in those days and nights. Some would say that at least the poor "were as free as the rich to sleep under bridges."
It is ironic, too, that the cops came from the same class of people that they were paid and directed to displace, keep moving, keep honest, control. In many cases as today, the cops then would have come from among the rousted, penniless, working class survivors of industrialism's unequal distribution of wealth. Police work provided a source of upward, social movement for an otherwise surplus worker.
Like London's "Bobbies," many of the police officers that are policing our streets have few or no real marketable skills. They would not, could not do well in the competitive sector, and for one reason or others, do not have those honed social skills necessary in the monopoly corporate world. Still, many police complete high school with high marks. They are generally bright. They enter the military where their education in obedience and iron-like discipline comes to serve them so well as public servants. Many learn to listen more closely then they did during their 12 years of regurgitating classroom stories.
Overall, I believe, as stereotypes go, and as my 62 years have lead me to believe, the typical cop is more savvy, and more sophisticated in the ways of the World then the average citizen. Also, by virtue of their socialization during 8 and more working hours each day, they learn and hone social skills that most of us cannot imagine. There is no way to measure or judge the many quips, queries, and ways of seeing humanity that a cop develops.
That "thin blue line" gives cops a background and fellowship most of us do not experience, but for church going. For the cops, the community of cops creates bonds only exceeded by the combat veterans of the World; for their hazards in the workplace, cops gain in solidarity what the most fervent revolutionary cherishes, a cooperative comradeship unmatched elsewhere.
Cops are not perfect by a far cry, and why should they be? After all, their ranks grow from society's public education system. There are drug dealing cops, crony cops, and worse (which is hard to imagine). But then, by far cops are generally the guy that I want living next door. The guy (gal too) that I look to for an even shake in business. As stereotypes go, I expect a fair shake from cops in their civilian World.
Starvation cultivates critical thinking in the right circumstances. For the revolutionary Chinese peasants, this meant that they broke with tradition going back 10,000 years to the agrarian revolution. From the fertile banks of the Euripides in today's Iraq to the village of Fanshine, labor created wealth. Labor generated profit created by turning soil and sun into surplus value. Food storage and its guardians were needed. History would not, probably could not, have had it otherwise. From the growth of the clan to the emergence of the nation state, surplus value needed to be guarded. I was impressed with Professor Lumpin's recounting of China's revolutionary changes through this micro-story of the nation state turning upside down. Starvation has a way of destroying the subordination of peasants to ideology.
On another day, another subject, I heard him say it, and I heard him say it again, and then again even later. "I hate cops." "Wow, what's this about?" I wondered. Lumpkin did not give much reason for this hate, other than that the cops had somehow mishandled him and others. I could see how someone without much education might make a blanket statement like this, but a sociology professor? What a generalization, and from what sort of stereotype does this hate arise?
I knew from my own teenage years that my rights had been violated by the police, rights that go to the heart of being an American citizen. I had been accused of a deed that I had not done, a deed that I was incapable of performing. Just the same, the cops walked right into my bedroom without invitation to my home, and ordered me to get dressed. This was foul I knew and I knew that they were wrong. In the following hour I could easily have become a "juvenile delinquent," but I did not. I could see from this experience, though, how people come to "hate cops" ("Constable on Patrol' as the British put it).
I did not lose my admiration for the professor, but I did discount his objectivity while continuing to trust his academic skills.
Now I'm thinking that societies have always needed "cops" since the agrarian revolution. How else could the ruling elite keep their surplus wheat, their surplus goods once extracted from the labor of the weaker, landless classes? Without cops, without some sort of repressive apparatus civilization as we know it would not exist. People do not share wealth as if they were Jesus Christ. That was the whole point of "Giving unto Caesar," keeping the peace between the haves and have nots. Granted, Roman soldiers were not cops, but their role was pretty much the same, to repress uprisings generated by the theft of surplus value from the fields. Fanshin's peasants were not repressed by soldiers; they were supresed by the dominant ideology. Either soldiers or ideology will do the job for the ruling elite. Social control is quite simple in this regard.
Moving fast-forward from the agrarian revolution to the Industrial Revolution, British cops in the 19th century spent their "graveyard" shifts rousting the poor and homeless from park benches, from alleys and porches. There were the surplus working poor, the "surplus army of labor" needed for union busting and wage control.
This surplus army of labor needed to be controlled. So it was understood that in London, no one sits at night. "Keep them moving" was the order to the British cops. For the poor and homeless, night time was hell. A sleepless period of moving about, zombie-like, followed the Sun's setting for both adults and children. I can see how the homeless working class and lumpen-proletariat came to "hate cops" in those days and nights. Some would say that at least the poor "were as free as the rich to sleep under bridges."
It is ironic, too, that the cops came from the same class of people that they were paid and directed to displace, keep moving, keep honest, control. In many cases as today, the cops then would have come from among the rousted, penniless, working class survivors of industrialism's unequal distribution of wealth. Police work provided a source of upward, social movement for an otherwise surplus worker.
Like London's "Bobbies," many of the police officers that are policing our streets have few or no real marketable skills. They would not, could not do well in the competitive sector, and for one reason or others, do not have those honed social skills necessary in the monopoly corporate world. Still, many police complete high school with high marks. They are generally bright. They enter the military where their education in obedience and iron-like discipline comes to serve them so well as public servants. Many learn to listen more closely then they did during their 12 years of regurgitating classroom stories.
Overall, I believe, as stereotypes go, and as my 62 years have lead me to believe, the typical cop is more savvy, and more sophisticated in the ways of the World then the average citizen. Also, by virtue of their socialization during 8 and more working hours each day, they learn and hone social skills that most of us cannot imagine. There is no way to measure or judge the many quips, queries, and ways of seeing humanity that a cop develops.
That "thin blue line" gives cops a background and fellowship most of us do not experience, but for church going. For the cops, the community of cops creates bonds only exceeded by the combat veterans of the World; for their hazards in the workplace, cops gain in solidarity what the most fervent revolutionary cherishes, a cooperative comradeship unmatched elsewhere.
Cops are not perfect by a far cry, and why should they be? After all, their ranks grow from society's public education system. There are drug dealing cops, crony cops, and worse (which is hard to imagine). But then, by far cops are generally the guy that I want living next door. The guy (gal too) that I look to for an even shake in business. As stereotypes go, I expect a fair shake from cops in their civilian World.
And when they are in their World of policing, I tend to expect a professional relationship from cops. I also keep in mind that the cop that I'm dealing with may have been verbally abused, insulted, maligned by their last interaction with Joe six-pack or his wife Jane makeover. I keep in mind that the cop I'm facing has spent his/her time in a briefing room with comrades on this very day; the cop I'm facing has information that deals with death and dying, and tomorrow the death and dying may involve his own World of comrades. this goes on for cops 24/7/365.
I want to keep on this thread, this death and dying among cops, especially after this weekends quadruple police officer homicide in Oakland, California. How could it come to this? How could one ex-con, parole violating dirt bag come to single-handedly kill four trained, experienced police sergeants? The newspaper that I read claimed that the first two officers were motor officers, and both were gunned down on a typical traffic stop. Motor officers are by their nature gung-hole; like paratroopers, they get their first prepared to take on their adversaries by surprise or not. They are meant to jump into the middle of the fight and win.
What happened?
I want to keep on this thread, this death and dying among cops, especially after this weekends quadruple police officer homicide in Oakland, California. How could it come to this? How could one ex-con, parole violating dirt bag come to single-handedly kill four trained, experienced police sergeants? The newspaper that I read claimed that the first two officers were motor officers, and both were gunned down on a typical traffic stop. Motor officers are by their nature gung-hole; like paratroopers, they get their first prepared to take on their adversaries by surprise or not. They are meant to jump into the middle of the fight and win.
What happened?
Well, number one, a motorcycle does not provide much concealment, let alone cover. But I doubt if either were necessary in this stop. Two trained motor officers would have known to stand apart, to stand so as to cover one another's backs at all times, to keep their eye's on the subject's hands. They did not anticipate. They were complacent. They were not thinking critically -- What if?
Complacency kills cops just as it kills soldiers. Some times curiosity kills cops too, but when they are curious, their critical thinking skills are working. They get killed simply by virtue of police work's demands, especially when they are conscientious.
Also, it is when moving toward a disturbance that cops tend to have an elevation of that male hormone testosterone, a real focus orienting hormone. So when moving towards a threat, we expect, cops have their adrenaline up and their basic police skills up front. Their pupils become pinpoint circles, the blood in their bodies moves inward away from their skin's surface, and their fight-or-flight reflexes become way overwhelmed by the fight side of this physical equation. As helpful as this condition becomes in a fight, it hinders the mind's judgment because it narrows attention too much for a predator-like attitude.
Simply by performing routine duties cops hurt, when they become complacent, when their bodies are out of touch with the reality of their environment. i know this is true from my own experience with cops. Some forty-six years ago Billy Foreman's daddy put a bullet through his head with his policeman's revolver. It was New Years Eve. He had been drinking. Mr. Foreman could no longer work because one of his knees was ruined while breaking up a bar fight. He had no skills to sell. No capital to invest. He went from being a savvy, sophisticated, dedicated police officer to a social dependent in a split instant while doing his inherently dangerous job. So there are social psychological issues to consider here besides patrol tactics and complacency, at least in police casualties. ("Who cleaned up that suicide I wondered at the time.") Little did I suspect what I would be doing in my "retirement years.")
So I know that cops get hurt while in-tune with their environment, and while out-of-tune with their environment. Just the same, the two dead cops at that traffic stop in Oakland somehow got away from their fundamentals of police patrol procedures. How else can we explain two dead police sergeants at a traffic stop, both killed with a handgun? It happens, sure.
Then, how do we explain the two dead SWAT officers responding to the apartment building in which the cop killer sought safety? Therein he armed himself with an assault rifle (God save the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution!) and, apparently, ambushed the SWAT team. He killed two and wounded one with a "graze" to the head. Who was this puke? Only Audie Murphy could claim such skill; Rambo and the Rifleman could pretend such, but and ex-con? There is something wrong with this story. Either the Faiths were working against civilization as we know it, or there is something amiss in the Oakland Police Department. But then again, I must consider that the puke would shoot anywhere and the police do not have this luxury. The police are accountable for every single round that exits their weapons. Place this requirement on soldier and our ours will be fought hand-to-hand or with cross-bows.
How would Professor Lumpin explain the doings in Oakland this weekend? Were these police officers acting as part of the "repressive apparatus" when they stopped this violating parolee? Or were they more like working class keepers of the peace trying to earn a middle-class income by risking their lives? The latter appeals to me, the former has its place in a general discussion of nationalism and the State.
So what happens to the police now that the US economy is broken, or if not broken, damaged? More people will have less, which is not such a bad thing if you are an environmentalist. But if you are a shopkeeper on Mainstreet, today's "downturn" means fewer sells, fewer employees, and overall, less growth and profit for all but the rich. Surplus value must still be protected, even when there are fewer places to extract it.
So I know that cops get hurt while in-tune with their environment, and while out-of-tune with their environment. Just the same, the two dead cops at that traffic stop in Oakland somehow got away from their fundamentals of police patrol procedures. How else can we explain two dead police sergeants at a traffic stop, both killed with a handgun? It happens, sure.
Then, how do we explain the two dead SWAT officers responding to the apartment building in which the cop killer sought safety? Therein he armed himself with an assault rifle (God save the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution!) and, apparently, ambushed the SWAT team. He killed two and wounded one with a "graze" to the head. Who was this puke? Only Audie Murphy could claim such skill; Rambo and the Rifleman could pretend such, but and ex-con? There is something wrong with this story. Either the Faiths were working against civilization as we know it, or there is something amiss in the Oakland Police Department. But then again, I must consider that the puke would shoot anywhere and the police do not have this luxury. The police are accountable for every single round that exits their weapons. Place this requirement on soldier and our ours will be fought hand-to-hand or with cross-bows.
How would Professor Lumpin explain the doings in Oakland this weekend? Were these police officers acting as part of the "repressive apparatus" when they stopped this violating parolee? Or were they more like working class keepers of the peace trying to earn a middle-class income by risking their lives? The latter appeals to me, the former has its place in a general discussion of nationalism and the State.
So what happens to the police now that the US economy is broken, or if not broken, damaged? More people will have less, which is not such a bad thing if you are an environmentalist. But if you are a shopkeeper on Mainstreet, today's "downturn" means fewer sells, fewer employees, and overall, less growth and profit for all but the rich. Surplus value must still be protected, even when there are fewer places to extract it.
Physiologically, psychologically, and socially, police officers have a lot going on. Now the US economy conspires against them; the drug war conspires against them; the gun lobby conspires against them, and their work gets harder and more dangerous as a result.
I will continue this thread soon, I hope. My mind seeks to explain a few issues and writing helps my critical thinking by clarifying and distinguishing the World that I find myself in.
Eddie Evans
Crime Scene Cleanup
