Read on Twitter
A paragraph-by-paragraph summary of Angela Davis' argument against police and prisons 
https://twitter.com/levelmag/status/1313575226047959040
https://twitter.com/levelmag/status/1313575226047959040
1. Demands for reforms entrench the institutions they target. They were popularized more than other demands.
(True, not clear why it's bad)
(True, not clear why it's bad)
2a. Policing and punishment are rooted in racism. Examples from the US.
Police & Punishment predate racism or colonialization by many centuries. Logically, something from the future cannot influence the past: "rooted in" is therefore false, "linked, in the US, with" is correcr.
Police & Punishment predate racism or colonialization by many centuries. Logically, something from the future cannot influence the past: "rooted in" is therefore false, "linked, in the US, with" is correcr.
2b. It's unclear why 20th century police militarization (true worlsldwide) is intensified by islamophobia. She gives no reason. Note that 9/11 is twenty-first century, and that's a fight against terrorism that massively impacts Middle-Eastern people (many but not all Muslim).
2c. "Capitalism has always fundamentally relied on racism to sustain itself". Capitalism is about free(r) markets for capital, work, land & goods.
Racism in part shapes our capitalist society. It'd still be capitalism without racism, but our current society would be different.
Racism in part shapes our capitalist society. It'd still be capitalism without racism, but our current society would be different.
Now exploitation and racist justifications absolutely allowed individuals, companies & states exploit and enrich themselves.
The popularity of rubber tires was based on evil levels of exploitation in Congo. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48533964
The popularity of rubber tires was based on evil levels of exploitation in Congo. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48533964
Europe & US would look very different without this degree of exploitation. There'd much less materials available to build stuff so while the ideas of capitalism would still be there, they wouldn't be leveraged to the same extend.
2d. She brings in "systemic racism". This argument is back by research on compounding: poor people's schools suck so they get low-paying jobs, no safety networks means any issue puts them into dire situations, etc.
In the US, calling this "massive embodiment" is reasonable.
In the US, calling this "massive embodiment" is reasonable.
Activist rhetorical trick: if you want to destroy something, claim that it cannot survive without upholding a bad thing. This bad thing didn't merely occur at the beginning, the entire system is built on it & cannot abandon it. The goal is to recruit people against the bad thing.
Socialists used to say that women's exploitation was rooted in capitalism (despite women's exploitation being much older than capitalism,making their claim wrong). Their goal was to recruit people who fought for women in their camp.
3a. Anyone on the left only learnt about the reproduction of inequality (a way of viewing structural racism) long before 2020? She is painting a false "year zero" story, a common activist trick. It erases the earlier contribution of people and contributes to their silencing.
3b. That said this paragraph is an accurate representation of 2020. Activism was centered on reforming American systems & institutions. In 2020 with "Defund the police", calls to destroy thie police have reached the mainstream & now occupy discussions. You can quote it:
4. This paragraph is targeting worries, and aims people who are in high-crime neighborhoods "of color".
Yeah. It gets interesting
Yeah. It gets interesting
4b. "this is ... the moment to engage in the kind of educational activism that might help to encourage all of us, especially those... in the most vulnerable neighborhoods, to purposefully rethink the meaning of safety and security."
We/They are wrong of judging our own safety?
We/They are wrong of judging our own safety?
4c. Provides no answer but she acknowledges people who fear non-police "malevolent groups". She wants to educate them on (not build with them) a new meaning for safety and security.
Are we wrong on what safety means? Does she gives us alternatives below? The plot thickens.
Are we wrong on what safety means? Does she gives us alternatives below? The plot thickens.
5a. She wants public figures to "introduc(e) ways of imagining the future" on police & prisons. That is odd. She doesn't want them to propose ideas or definitions, she wants them to propose methods of thinking. Not conclusions, methods.
Activist rhetorical tactic: some group profoundly distrust people, often because said people disagree with them. The activist program is then built to manage this issue & push the activist's view... By controling decision-making.
(The way she disagrees with reformists).
(The way she disagrees with reformists).
5b. Unless I'm mistaken, the link to "anti-racist feminists" has no relation to the arguments in the sentence. That's odd since "carceral feminism" is used many times in literature to talk about calls to jail rapists, exploiters & co.
That's an interesting idea (can we rethink the notion of order and prosecution, and how would an alternative look like?). But she's still only problematizing, not pointing to ideas.
5c. "we have not yet achieved a consensus in understanding that a police presence in public schools corrupts the educational process." Not American so I'm curious. Does the police prevent kids or teachers from attending? Disturb lectures? Change the curriculum?
