In his 1976 autobiography, My Life of Absurdity, African American novelist Chester Himes opened with:

“[Algerian philosopher] Albert Camus once said that racism is absurd. Racism introduces absurdity into the human condition. Not only does racism express the absurdity of the racists, but it generates absurdity in the victims. And the absurdity of the victims intensifies the absurdity of the racists, ad infinitum. If one lives in a country where racism is held valid and practiced in all ways of life, eventually, no matter whether one is a racist or a victim, one comes to feel the absurdity of life.

Racism generating from whites is first of all absurd. Racism creates absurdity among blacks as a defense mechanism. Absurdity to combat absurdity.”



 

When the BART Officer killed Oscar Grant on New Years Day, I have to admit, I initially blamed Grant.

He had been part of a commotion and the BART police had to be called. Then I saw the video. I saw the young African-American man lying face down while white officers totally controlled him. I saw the white officer shoot him in the back. I watched many young African American men’s greatest fear: to be vilified and shot like vermin. Then in March, I was shocked to hear that Lovelle Mixon, another young African American man, had killed three, then four, white policemen. The mainstream media called him a monster. Vigils were held for Mixon.

I didn’t make a connection between the two incidents except that both happened in East Oakland. They were confrontations between young African American men and white police officers. For many, the incidents were the continuation of Oa kland’s circle of fear, vilification/dehumanization and then violence. My question: How do African American men to see and get out of this circle of what Chester Himes called “absurdity to combat absurdity”?

* * *

This fear and distrust is not new or unique to Oakland. Throughout American history, law enforcement did not “protect and serve” the African American communities; it contained African Americans and protected the (white) mainstream “status quo.” Law enforcement policed the African American communities with terror and violence. Police brutality spurred the Black Panthers—but still white America, in its absurdity, viewed them as troublemakers. The police absurdly fought the peaceful Civil Rights Movement, including Martin Luther King, Jr., with violence. Even today, innocent African American men are often stopped on the street. I myself had been handcuffed and detained in San Francisco’s Union Square because they were looking for a B lack man and I just happened to drive by. It was absurd since I was on my way to an art show.

It is human nature to vilify/demonize something to justify killing it. Oakland’s watching the white officer’s shooting Oscar Grant in the back confirmed many young men’s fears of mainstream America’s seeing him as a monster or beast. The white officer, acting as the agent of mainstream America, shot a helpless African American man in the back like “vermin.” A videophone captured the shooting; a policewoman tried to confiscate the phone. Whether or not Mixon thought about Grant, Mixon killed four white officers. No one knows why. Did he fear they would shoot him so he shot them first? Was he afraid they’d take him back to jail? Did he have a suicide wish and want to be killed? No one knows why the police stopped him in the first place. Some people celebrated the police killing as if evil monsters had been slain. They called it “payback” for the killing of Oscar Grant. As if he helped liberate them from a cultural oppressor, Mixon, a felon, was absurdly called a “folk hero” and “a symbol of African resistance.”

Mixon was on parole and yet carried an assault weapon. But that made no difference to some because many innocent African American men had been dehumanized by law enforcement and were fearful. Felon or not, Mixon expressed the anger of many men. Innocent or not, Mixon would have been in danger of police brutality. Afterall, some argued, Oscar Grant wasn’t a physical threat to the police and still the officer shot him in the back at a close range. The media was never clear about why the police stopped Mixon in the first place (leaving some to speculate about racial profiling). Law enforcement later claimed that Mixon had been accused of raping several women in his community—including a 12-year old girl. This upset some East Oakland parents and a local school principal because they had not heard the story before. They wanted to know why the police did not notify them that a child molester was roaming around the schoolyard? However, skeptics questioned the rape stories. They argued that it was a lie fabricated to demonize Mixon. They believed it was an effort to prevent Mixon’s community from making a martyr out of him. So is it absurd for the police to make up such a story? Or can the policemen’s claim be proven and hence it would be absurd to make a martyr out of a neighborhood child molester?

However, we do know Mixon was driving around East Oakland with an assault weapon. Why was he carrying an assault weapon (after already having been in prison for threatening someone with one)? Who, within his community, would he have used it on? (Perhaps the politicians saying that the killings prove that we need stricter gun control laws were the most absurd in this incident. It’s as if they believe Mixon would have said, “I can’t carry a gun, it’s illegal.” Or perhaps the politicians believed their constituents would believe the absurdity.) Even radio talk shows joined in the circle of “absurdity against absurdity.” I heard a national radio talk show host instigate and stoke the feelings of fear that shook America. He theatrically acted enrage over the “liberals” at the officers’ funeral—including Feinstein and Brown—who he accused of helping create a culture that fostered “vermin” (to use his vilifying word) like Mixon. He dramatically called Mixon a “gangbanger” (even though Mixon acted independently, this label made the killing into a “black thing.”). The radio talk show host even went as far as to blame “homosexuals” and “lesbians” for enabling “them” (again referring to Mixon as a “gangbanger”). The host was so absurd that his comical ranting would have been funny, if he had not been given a national platform. I worry about the impressionable, young African American boys who might internalize this man’s sentiment.

* * *

Oakland’s circle of fear and violence may be intensified because of gentrification. Oakland is changing rapidly. The New York Times once called this Oakland’s “renaissance”—as if there was no civilization here before. The mainstream is encroaching upon Oakland traditional African American communities. More and more, African American men (some euphemistically call blight) come in contact with the “pioneers” (generally considered young white and “cool”). It is harder to protect the “pioneers”; it is harder to contain the “blight.” It is harder to keep the “blight” from the “pioneers.” I’ve watched my own Oakland neighborhood, once mainly African-American, g entrify. The police played a very visible role in the process. Suddenly, I saw them patrolling the neighborhoods. Police parked on street corners that had always been known as “problem corners” or corners were men hung out. Traffic control was placed on street corners that had always been dangerous to pedestrians. I even heard about plain-clothed decoys being employed to cross the street to catch speeding drivers who do not stop for pedestrians in crosswalks. My neighborhood has always had muggings. Before gentrification, neighbors informed each other about crime—especially muggings. Neither the police nor the media showed any interests, so we stayed out of certain areas at night. We used common sense. One night a lone white woman got mugged in one of those dark spots. She placed a shrill letter on all the neighbors’ mailboxes. She repeatedly described her muggers as “African American men”—as if it made a difference. Did she think she was writing only to her white neighbors and the rest of us lurked in the background? Did it make a difference—to her or to us—that her muggers were African American? A television news station interviewed her. Why was her mugging so special? She was not the first to complain. However, she was the first “pioneer” that I knew to be violated. The newscaster did not ask why, if she felt that African American men were so dangerous, she would be out alone at night in a “notorious” African American neighborhood? He did not question the absurdity of her actions.

* * *

How do young African American men break the circle of “absurdity to combat absurdity”? How do they break out of the circle of fear and vilification? In their hearts, Mixon’s20supporters are fighting to maintain their humanity; but it is only a Pyrrhic victory. Mixon’s supporters are reacting; they are not re-creating their own realities. It’s as if they’re saying: “If I’m going to be seen as ‘blight,’ I’m going to show them blight.” They are playing into the circle. The circle allows defines them. Thus, they control neither their own minds nor their own actions. In the end, they are fighting themselves. As Oscar Grant and Lovelle Mixon shows us, they will not always be victorious. In fact, it is disempowering. As absurd as it might sound, as a writer, I’ve come to think that many African Americans are afraid of white America. In order to break out of the circle of “absurdity to combat absurdity,” African American men must first see it clearly. Then they can change their roles in the circle and step out of it. They must search beyond both mainstream America and their familiar communities for alternative ideas. They must create their own social groups. For example, they might explore new worlds through reading and debating. They might ask questions. President Barak Obama played the race card and won; what lessons can be learned from reading and debating his autobiography? What lessons can be learned from reading and debating Oprah Winfrey’s life story? If the young men have access to the Internet, can they expand their worlds by making friends in India? They can connect with African American males at Ivy League schools or historically Black colleges like Morehouse, Howard or Fisk. By doing this, they can move beyond the world that labels them “blight.” They can create a world for themselves. They can define themselves for themselves. Like Obama, they can challenge the world and win. So I ask: Would Oscar Grant and Lovelle Mixon be alive today if they had been engaged in some intellectually-stimulating social activities? Kheven LaGrone is the editor of “Alice Walker’s The Color Purple” a collection of literary criticism on the controversial novel.