Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Have I ever mentioned how much I love Robert Frost? I looooove Robert Frost. Deceptively simple. Beauty without frill. Somehow, I believe him without feeling manipulated. I once wrote a paper (and gave a presentation) comparing the phonosemantics in Robert Frost’s poetry and the lyrics of one Mr. Dwayne Michael Carter, better known as “Lil Wayne.” They seem to dig a lot of the same poetic devices, much to the surprise of my higher-browed classmates at the time.
Besides its ironically gorgeous nonchalance about the coming apocalypse, Fire and Ice also offers us a perfect example of ellipsis. Whereas Mr. Carter likes to go by “Lil Wayne,” the unassuming ellipsis often dons the moniker, “dot dot dot.” Since this is poetry, we don’t have to actually write the dots. But they’re there. See ’em? Frost advises that while “Some say the world will end in fire,” others “say in ice.” But of course, no one literally says, “in ice.” No. They say more than that. Their full exclamation is that the world will end in ice. After all, just saying “in ice” alone would make no sense, right?
But because that opening phrase is just as jarring as it is undeniable, its repetition is unnecessary — especially for the sake of something as vain as English grammar. If Frost had uttered “the world will end” two times, that whole thought would have been cheapened, like any widget in a widget-flooded market. So instead, line two finds this phrase not repeated but elided. One might argue that the unsaid second is even louder than the spoken first.
Ellipsis is a rhetorical device. More importantly, it is the speaker’s good faith expression of trust that an audience in its due diligence will in fact infer the implied. The speaker takes a leap of faith that listeners will get it. Anything else would almost certainly over-explain, if not outright condescend. An audience who feigns confusion after hearing “some say in ice” has violated that trust and jeopardized the health and productivity of the entire exchange.
In the same vein, “Black lives matter” simply means “black lives matter as much as anyone else’s life matters.” That second part is elided only because it can’t be chanted, hash-tagged, sloganized, screen-printed, or bumper-stickered. Complete thoughts get hacked for quick delivery all the time in social politics, just as they do in poetry. So why does this particular shorthand make folks uneasy? “Black lives matter” does not mean other lives don’t matter. It’s just a reminder that in addition to those who have enjoyed the luxury of mattering all along, blacks now matter too. Yes, white lives matter and blue lives matter and indeed all lives matter. But if you wield those phrases as dismissive retorts to BLM, then you probably don’t get it. Of course all lives matter. That’s about as obvious as “some say the world will end in ice.” It’s so ridiculously plain that it need not even be argued — which is likely one of the reasons why Frost left it out.
This ellipsis might also abbreviate something along the lines of “black lives matter more than your personal insecurities, your power trips, or your particularly stressful morning.” Understand. Once people think they’ve seen one too many disturbing police encounters seemingly excused on the grounds of “I had had a really shitty day” or “how dare she refuse to put out her cigarette,” they often feel compelled to remind folks that lives outweigh those relative trifles. And by “lives,” I’m not just talking about pulses and brain waves. I’m talking about humanity itself. Yes, there are studies and data compilations that at first glance would seem to belie any significant racial element to policing. And yes, white people do find themselves on the receiving end of questionable police action. But reality always takes a back seat to perception. BLM is rhetorical code for a broader public inquiry into the media-driven impression (accurate or not) that police encounters escalate more quickly with black folks than otherwise.
All this hapless hubbub over a missing too. On the one hand, it seems a silly quibble. (Catch the ellipsis there?) On the other hand, in the era of instant mass media, words matter almost as much as lives do. So we’ve got to get this right; because frankly, I fear what I see brewing between black folks and our beloved Blue Line. Many well-meaning minorities are too quick to focus on race to the exclusion of all else. Equally naïve are those honest cops who convince themselves that everyone is colorblind. If we need to better train our police to keep their cool and stay professional even when dealing with rude or mouthy or self-righteous citizens, then let’s not allow our pride get in the way. If we need to educate the public that it’s not always as simple as opting for a Taser — or if we need to teach them that yes, in fact, the cops can legally ask you to step out of the car — then great. Let’s do that too. Either way, the police and the communities they serve must each acknowledge their own bad apples and unequivocally excommunicate them. Now. Otherwise, one group might as well be fire, and the other, ice. And Frost has already clued us in on how that all plays out.
Check out the big brain on Brad…err Tiffany!
In all seriousness, as usual you have written a very thought provoking post. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to write anything that would benefit both of us and your readers so I will end with keep up the good work.
Glad to know you’re still keeping me on my toes, Bill! Maybe later you can come back and wow us all with the answers to all the world’s problems. I’ll be waiting…… 😉
“We dance round in a ring and suppose, But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.”
Exactly!!! See what I mean? Frost rocks. 😀
I think I’ve started to type a reply to this about three or four times, and gave up each time. There is much to say on this, and it isn’t something conveyed with ease. (Plus, I tend to ramble…) Let me start by saying I mean absolutely no offense, so please find no offense in my words.
This sentence of yours,
“That second part is elided only because it can’t be chanted, hash-tagged, sloganized, screen-printed, or bumper-stickered. Complete thoughts get hacked for quick delivery all the time in social politics…”
–brought forth a thought.
Ideas are often complex. Complex ideas are not best explained in slogans, or 140-character Tweets. (Honestly, I think Twitter will destroy this country by dumbing us down to the point that we won’t have the attention span to be able to comprehend anything longer than a single sentence at a time)
I don’t have any bumper stickers on my car, partly because my political thoughts and leanings are far too complex to pare down to a 2″ by 10″ piece of sticky vinyl. That, and I don’t need someone taking their keys to my car because they don’t like the fact that I have a different view than they do.
Complex ideas need explained. Imagine trying to truncate self defense laws down into a simple, one sentence (or even just a phrase) explanation that even poorly conveys when it is okay to shoot someone in self defense. Some ideas need the full explanation. It does a disservice to the idea to do otherwise. But I don’t think that that’s the issue with BLM. I think it’s an entirely different thing going on.
I think part of the rancor towards the the whole BLM slogan is the where it began–with the acquittal of G Zimmerman. Accounts of the entire event can be found in lots of places, so I won’t bother to rehash them except to say the gist of it was a man who defended his life from an unarmed black man intent upon smashing his head into the sidewalk. The black life that mattered in that moment was acting in a criminal fashion, one that required the use of deadly force. The media sold the story as something entirely different, and the narrative they told is still around (white hispanic? Seriously?). Did GZ need to get out of his car? No, but it wasn’t illegal or wrong, either. (This in no way is meant to justify or excuse GZ’s actions, merely to point out that the jury heard all the facts and they made a decision based on those facts.)
Shortly thereafter, the shooting of Michael Brown led to another BLM moment. And the BL(that)M in that case had just committed strong arm robbery, and was shot when officer Wilson was apparently attacked by Brown. Witnesses came from every corner and told what they saw (even those that weren’t anywhere near the actual location) claiming that the officer shot an unarmed man who had his hands up. Eventually, enough pieces of actual witness testimony came together to find the shooting justified, to find that MB did not in fact have his hands up, and that Wilson had indeed been physically attacked. The media came in and told a story and another narrative was born (Hands Up, Don’t Shoot). (This in no way is meant to say that the police didn’t handle the situation and the aftermath poorly, because I believe they did handle it poorly.)
The media, in both cases, stirred the pot of racial relations, hoping to get exactly what they got. Strife and division is news. More strife and more division leads to more news coverage. They have papers to sell, and lives (of any color) do not matter to them (unless they can profit off of it). People accuse me of being cynical. I think I’m merely observing what’s transpiring and calling it as I see it. Seriously, though, the media has done significant damage, and gotten away with it time and again. Editing GZ’s statement on the air to make it appear as though his comments were racially biased when in fact he was answering a question about the race of the actor/suspect. Showing (repeatedly) picture of TM as a twelve year old kid, when more recent pictures were readily available (except they portrayed him in a negative light because he actually looked physically intimidating in some of them). Pushing the whole white hispanic thing. The fact that the story even made it nationally in the first place was evidence of the media pushing a narrative. The local police had already dropped the case declaring it justified.
The media is the issue here. The always have been and always will be until people (black and white) realize they are being manipulated by them. Your sentence: “BLM is rhetorical code for a broader public inquiry into the media-driven impression (accurate or not) that police encounters escalate more quickly with black folks than otherwise.” And that’s the problem. It IS a media driven impression, and it isn’t accurate, but it sells.
But the biggest criticism of BLM, from what I’ve seen, isn’t in avoiding the argument that Black Lives Matter (as much as any other lives), or confusing it to mean that BLM (more than anybody else).
Instead, it appears to be a criticism that asks: “If Black Lives Matter, then why the heck aren’t you out protesting every gang related shooting where one black man has shot another (to the tune of more than 20 times a day, nationwide!), every time a black man or black youth is knifed, etc. How come the only time BLM is when the person doing the shooting is white?” Revs Jesse and Al show up and lead chants and protests when a white police officer shoots a black man, but nary a peep out of them when it’s a black officer (or black on black crime). If Black Lives Matter, where the hell are they!?
This country is divided, and getting worse, and the media is behind it, if only to remain relevant for one more day.
(steps off soap box, thanks audience for their patience, puts on flame retardant overalls and waits)
No offense taken whatsoever! This comment of yours pretty much says it all: “Ideas are often complex. Complex ideas are not best explained in slogans, or 140-character Tweets.” I agree 100%. If only we could all say exactly what we mean without stumbling or having to abbreviate, we could save ourselves a ton of problems…
Hi, Shrimp! So, first things first: I hope this is the blog where no one needs flame retardant overalls! So you’re safe there. 🙂 But I did want to very humbly suggest a different take on your last few paragraphs.
First, people (of all races) *do* complain about gang shootings and other “every day” murders. There are all kinds of programs and protests and other efforts afoot to quell street crime. That’s just not nearly as newsworthy and rarely gets national attention. So here, once again, I think the media plays a role in shaping people’s perceptions.
Second, a death at the hands of John Q. Citizen — though equally abhorrent — is very different from a death at the hands of the police. For one, it’s the government. Just like in economics, private actions and government actions must be viewed through different lenses, as they have very different implications. One affects two people and their private circles; the other has constitutional ripples that reach every American citizen. Not only is an officer an extension of the government, but as such he also has a built-in legal benefit of the doubt. I’m not talking about public opinion. I mean literally, case law and statutes *require* that police action be presumed to be justified, unless and until that presumption can be rebutted. John Q. Citizen doesn’t really have that card to play. Yes, he is theoretically innocent until proven guilty, but there is no law on the books that fortifies his self-defense claim or heightens the legal bar for holding him accountable.
So anyone who encounters unjustified police action — no matter how rare that might be — has an uphill battle to climb indeed. For those reasons, there is arguably more at stake when questions arise regarding the exercise of government power, and I don’t think it can be that easily compared to the exercise of individual power. And this is also why the media’s role in distorting truths and stoking flames is even more problematic.
I’m really glad you posted this reply. I know it’s a frustrating subject. Definitely not conducive to bumper stickers! Thanks so much for your honest feedback.
I know lots of people complain about the “everyday” murders and violence. There are vigils here in the Denver area almost every other week for someone who died violently. What I’m looking for is the Revs (Al and Jesse) to step up to the plate. Aren’t these men supposed to be leaders in the “black community?” The only time the Revs make the news (again, media perception may be to blame here) is when they want to protest a gun shop or a white officer shooting a black choir boy (who was on his way to church, don’t ya know). Are there any other “leaders” that will step up and say and do what needs to be said and done? (Even if there are, will the media listen?)
As for the police vs average citizen, I think it interesting that we had one of each (GZ and TM) (Off. DW and MB) and the media twisted each story to the narrative they wanted. They seek to do it every time there is a shooting with racial differences (black and white) or disparity of force. One of the very first citizen vs citizen shootings here in CO after the new concealed carry law passed (in 2003) was between a guy armed with a crow bar and a guy with a CCL. The media had a field day trying to work the public into a frenzy over the idea that a guy shot a man who was “only armed with a crowbar.” It didn’t work, but it was instructive that the media is not on your side after a shoot.
And they’ve successfully done it multiple times to the police. To be fair, the police have many times brought this upon themselves. Abuse of power is nothing new, and dirty cops are nothing new. Enough people have had it happen to them, black and white, that many are wary of the police. I know they are few and far between, but that doesn’t make the one you encounter any less of a problem. The one that I encountered changed my behavior towards police. But I still recognize that there are far more good ones than bad ones.
I think what bothers me most is when I see clear cut cases of abuse being explained away, or swept under the rug, but it bothers me just as greatly when I see clear cut cases the other way argued as “He didn’t need to shoot him, he should have done this instead.” The ones in between make up the majority.
The media is still the problem, though. I don’t know the answer for sure. Storm the local news channels offices and take over the news casts? Tempting, but not gonna happen. No one wants to watch me stumble and stutter through copy and mutter under my breath while I wait for the weather girl to finish the forecast so I can see the sports scores.
Ha! Well now you’ve given them a game plan for thwarting the rampage when we storm the newsroom. All they have to do is throw up the sports scores and there goes Shrimp’s OODA loop!
The media is a huge, huge, HUGE problem. Like all our other freedoms, a free press does indeed have costs. It really is depressing when the facts are so easily, so quickly, and so vastly distorted — whether by the media or by media consumers.
P.S. If anybody’s going to step up to the plate, I would very much prefer that it NOT be a washed-up conflict pimp with a smooth perm.