Cultural Racism and the Limits of Rationality in the Saga of Rodney King
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Denver Law Review Volume 70 Issue 2 Colloquy - Racism in the Wake of the Article 11 Los Angeles Riots January 2021 Cultural Racism and the Limits of Rationality in the Saga of Rodney King Anthony Cook Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Anthony Cook, Cultural Racism and the Limits of Rationality in the Saga of Rodney King, 70 Denv. U. L. Rev. 297 (1993). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. CULTURAL RACISM AND THE LIMITS OF RATIONALITY IN THE SAGA OF RODNEY KING ANTHONY COOK* This Essay develops a multidimensional understanding of racism necessitated by Rodney King's beating, the trial of his assailants and the acquittal of the defendants by an all-white Simi Valley jury. Many saw the episode as a blatant act of racism akin to the dark period of Ameri- can history in which public mobs routinely lynched blacks. It also pro- vided a birds-eye view of the complex development and intricate configuration of American racism. This Essay argues that racism results from a complex process of ac- culturation in which individuals come to see and interpret the world through lenses carefully crafted by a history of racism. Racism manifests itself on three interrelated levels of human interaction: individual, insti- tutional and cultural. All three of these levels of racism were present in the Rodney King saga. This Essay examines this multi-faceted under- standing of racism and offers an explanation of how a jury could look at the tape of such a vicious beating and convince themselves that the de- fendants did not use excessive force. I. BACKGROUND: THE RATIONALIST CONCEPT OF RACISM As racism moves from the individual to the cultural level, it is more difficult to establish that a perceived racist effect, such as the acquittal, can be attributed to an individual or group. The problem lies princi- pally in the rationalist conception of racism, an understanding largely embraced by our judicial system's race jurisprudence.l A rationalist un- derstanding of racism links racism to deviant consciousness, bad inten- tions and mental culpability. Since minds cannot be read, however, the difficulty lies in identifying racism. The rationalist answer evinces a de- pendence on certain signs or outward manifestations, representative of the subject's conscious state. The rationalist depends largely, though not exclusively, on language as representative of consciousness. Thus, intentions are discovered through the words used to describe those in- tentions. Explicit racial classifications are reviewed with strict scrutiny, since it is presumed that they reflect an illicit purpose and unacceptable state of mind. While in the area of race jurisprudence our legal system $ Professor of Law, Georgetown Law Center. B.A., 1982, Princeton; J.D., 1986, Yale. 1. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) (requiring a showing of discrimina- tory purpose under equal protection analysis); see also Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960) (inferring a discriminatory purpose from discriminatory effects). For the ground- breaking work on the importance of unconscious racism see Charles Lawrence, The Id, and The Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism, 39 STAN. L. REV. 317 (1987). DENVER UNIVERSITY LA W REVIEW [Vol. 70:2 will sometimes infer a state of consciousness from the subject's behav- ior, under the rationalist model, discriminatory impact is but the flipside of discriminatory purpose. Both are part of a rationalist model that vas- cilates between what it considers the appropriate measure of mental state or consciousness. The correspondence between language and thought is troubling. First, racist beliefs are not always conveyed through verbal expression. The rationalist model, therefore, punishes only those racists who are careless and do not attend to the proper window dressing required in a day where racism is publicly condemned. Second, it is often possible to interpret the expression of racist consciousness in a non-racist way. Thus, the expressions used by the Los Angeles police officers in refer- ence to the beating of Rodney King like "gorillas in the midst," "raging bull" and "thin blue line separating us from the jungle," are given refer- ents that diminish the possibilities of racist motivation. Finally, the link between words and consciousness is problematic because it is the con- scious and not the subconscious that is important to the rationalist model. When focused on the conscious, words of intentionality imply the subject's culpability. When focused on the subconscious, on the other hand, the histories that shaped the subconsciousness and the be- havior that proceeds from it became of paramount importance. II. INDIVIDUAL RACISM AND THE MODEL OF RATIONALITY Individual racism is a consciously held belief in the genetic, intellec- tual and/or anatomical inferiority of another group. While its manifes- tation is both overt and covert, it is solidly within the rationalist model described above. The individual or group is conscious of its racist be- liefs and is prepared to act on those beliefs. This article illustrates how the public discourse on race shifted over time, altering the ways in which conscious racism might express itself in public. Realizing this shift, the jurors' racism need not be proved by reference to a framework of racist expression no longer tolerated in public life. Instead, evidence of ra- cism must be gathered from a different framework that acknowledges the role and influence of institutional consciousness and cultural history. Overt individual racism is the most easily discerned and vehemently condemned form of racism. It occurs when individuals publicize and/or act out their racist beliefs in an effort to dominate a group deemed infer- ior. Overt individual racists consist of such diverse figures as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Senator Bo Bilbo, Dr. Shockley and Al Campanis.2 Both Jefferson and Lincoln present interesting cases be- cause in the prevailing folklore, they are seldom thought of as racists. While Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence pro- claiming all men equal and endowed with inalienable rights of life, lib- erty and the pursuit of happiness, and, while he championed an antislavery clause that was ultimately negotiated out of the document by 2. See infra notes 3 - 7 and accompanying text. 19931 CULTURAL RACISM 299 Southern slaveholding interests, his views of Blacks were those of an overt racist.3 In his comparison of blacks and whites, Jefferson noted that: The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane be- tween the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the coun- tenances, that immoveable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oran-ootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, 4 dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? Similarly, Lincoln is warmly remembered in history as the Great Emancipator of black people, as if his decision to free black slaves dur- ing the Civil War in 1863 indicated his willingness to see them as equals. Lincoln made it clear that he did not. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ...I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office... I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior po- sition assigned to the white race. 5 It is almost inconceivable that individuals of the stature ofJefferson or Lincoln could get away with such overt racism today. This is not to say that such beliefs are not widely held. To the contrary, covert racists hold similar beliefs about the natural inferiority of blacks, but simply respond in ways that elicit greater approbation than overt racists. Covert individual racism is an aversion to members of a group deemed inferior that manifests itself in efforts to avoid contact with the 3. See generally THOMAS JEFFERSON, NOTES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA (William Peden ed., 1972). 4. Id. at 138. 5. 1 ABRAHAM LINCOLN, COMPLETE WORKS 457 (John G. Nicolay & John Hay eds., 1907).