Guns and the New Civil-Rights Movement: Charleston Is Not Sandy Hook

Guns and the New Civil-Rights Movement: Charleston Is Not Sandy Hook

Guns and the New Civil-Rights Movement: Charleston Is Not Sandy Hook

The Charleston shooting had more to do with racism and white supremacy than gun control regulation.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

In Charleston, we were reminded that racist vigilante attacks against black people are a part of this country’s legacy. This a legacy built on violence through the subjugation and criminalization of black communities and terrorism to incite fear. Rather than addressing that legacy, the response to the Charleston massacre almost immediately focused on concern for stronger gun regulations. Instead of the identification of Dylann Roof as a racist with a white-supremacist ideology, we’ve heard remarks from even the president about the need for stronger gun regulations and mental-health care (as if racism were a mental illness). Less attention was paid to cracking down on white racist vigilantes and stemming the rise of right-wing racist hate groups.

What we know from history: Racist vigilantes don’t need guns to kill black people. Charleston is no different than the 1963 murder of four black schoolgirls in a Birmingham church, accomplished with 15 sticks of dynamite. Charleston is no different from the murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till by two white men who beat and shot him in the head for supposedly flirting with a white cashier at a grocery store.

As we remember the lives of Rev. Clementa Pinckney, Cynthia Hurd, Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Tywanza Sanders, Myra Thompson, Ethel Lee Lance, Susie Jackson, Daniel Simmons, and Depayne Middleton Doctor—it is wrong to compare Charleston to Sandy Hook, which was the act of a deranged man needing proper mental-health treatment. If we are to address gun violence, we must also understand that the Charleston 9, Trayvon Martin, Renisha McBride, Michael Brown, and many others like them are deeply embedded in institutional injustice and structural violence. We must attack the core inequalities in our society if we are to put an end to the senseless deaths and systemic violence inflicted on black communities. The question about race and guns can be simply drawn down to the rhetorical: “Who gets the right to feel safe in this country?” There has been a monopoly on who has the right to feel and be safe in this country—a monopoly that is often regulated and enforced by cops and corporations.

Talking heads like Chuck Todd have used Charleston as an opportunity to perpetuate a false image of black communities as riven by gun violence that must be controlled. When the country responds to the crisis of a mass shooting, largely perpetuated by young white men in this way, there are dire consequences for black people. Politicians and advocates seek to put more police in more places, including our schools, and implement discriminatory policing tactics like “broken windows.” Increased policing in black communities contributes to mass criminalization. In response to Charleston, NYPD patrols were set up across the city at black churches—contributing to a culture of fear and ongoing police practice of surveillance and the patrol of black communities. Is this what it means to be safe?

For communities like Charleston, this isn’t simply just a gun-violence issue. It intersects with the current movement against state violence and mass criminalization. We know that safety for black communities requires a move away from mass criminalization and a move towards fewer police. Safety will require community organizing and power building. Safety will require models of restorative justice and community-based solutions. Black communities have been victims of police and racist vigilante violence, economic deprivation, incarceration, and political isolation, and require a direct reinvestment and a social safety net in order to keep our communities safe. Black lives will matter when black communities can live without fear from both police and racist vigilantes.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x