The spirit of the American revolution manifested not only in its violence of chaotic origin but also in the constitution from congressional victors. That founding document that evinced the grievances of yesteryear fostered the counteractive tenets that would persevere as supreme law: signifying both federalist unity and sovereignty against foreign imposition. It stood as a reminder that the people consent to be governed: ‘We the people’, the original signatories, were affirming their equality in status among their peers. The subsequent Bill of Rights protected individual rights and freedoms and limited governmental power, acknowledging anti-federalist criticism.
This exhibited an attitude of civil allegiance: the loyalty of people to their individual liberties before the commonwealth. Yet while such ideals seemingly entrenched to the founding fathers, arguably, that liberal spirit has been eroded either by the isolation of citizenry from the original injustices or by the diminution of the original law.
While exploring the news of George Floyd’s death, what interested me was resistance exhibited by those bystanders to the murder. At that moment, what was it that inhibited their active intervention? I supposed the primary motivation was fear of the immediate consequence that should they physically aggress the officers they would face similar force against their own person. A subsequent notion was the uncertainty of legality: whether the bystanders realised the police were acting without rights, presumed they were authorised to use deadly force in the circumstance. While most could reasonably ascertain the imminent death, we saw only the vocal protest and filming while the murder continued.
Perhaps the complexities of our rights and those of the state are too complicated to understand by the people: should it be expected that people have read the legislation that guarantees their liberties? Though undoubtedly important, it is rarely done so. For someone that has not faced a breach of rights at the hands of the police force, I have not felt a need to understand and recall the law for such situations. Nonetheless, there are websites dedicated to exactly that purpose for those that feel they may face such discrimination in the future.
Despite my impressions of this passivity, soon after the active spirit against the abuse of state powers resurfaced with the rioting and street violence. Though it is disputed how much of this chaos is committed by protesters or by opportunists, it embodies that same liberal spirit against the state. People were ready to fight against the figurative enemy in peaceful protest, prepared to break law and fight against subsequent riot police, willing to damage property in the name of their own injustice; but the people at the moment didn’t intervene when the original sin was committed.
This is not to assign blame to any party, but to acknowledge that perhaps that same revolutionary spirit has dissipated in our modern setting. In a country that is governed by the people, for the people, why is that some people allow the state to act, without their consent, against their fellow citizens to the extent that they violate the most fundamental right to life?
I thought this was a very interesting take on what is such a current and thought provoking issue, one that I hadn’t considered before. I feel that people may be more likely to stand up for their rights, to challenge a system where the law is generally upheld both by the institutions and people in positions of power, as well as the civilians. I think what the current events in America have shown is that in a country where the law enforcers actively go against constitutional law and break public trust, there is active fear and uncertainty, for often those who stand up to law enforcement are unjustly punished – the diminution of the original law that you speak of. I think you’re right – years of oppression and the misuse of power by the state is something that has the potential to erode the ‘liberal spirit’ of any group over a long period. The idea of why people have been bystanders to violence, often the police, is complex. I do think it stems from that uncertainty of legality – what prevents the police from doing the same to others? At this point the police brutality is often senseless, no longer limited to African-American groups, but elderly protesters, women, children and the disabled. It is such a complicated and topical issue, of morality and of the fear and uncertainty that has been so deeply sown. I would say though, that I think protest seems like a safer way for a lot of people to show their dissent and anger because they are protected by a wider group, and that in the case of causalities it cannot be seen as an isolated incident, or brushed off in police reports as a stand-alone event. But all of this demonstrates the extent to which a lot of big societal changes need to be made, and that people are making their voices heard in order to do so. This was a great post, very interesting to read and consider 🙂