My take on this case and the anger issue is a little different. I agree with Leah that there are times when it is pragmatic to stay cool, and other times when expressing one's anger is necessary. But I think the issue of who is allowed to get angry is paramount here. People in power are often allowed to get angry -- in fact, it's often seen as a sign of their power and invulnerability. Other people -- like black men, and women of all colors -- not only risk being completely dismissed as irrational and out of control when they express their anger, but may actually put themselves in danger. The danger element is what is not quite addressed here.
And of course, the people who are least allowed to express their anger are usually the ones who most deserve to be angry -- angry about their own experiences as well as the collective history that they carry around with them.
Now, I happen to think that the Gates/Crowley situation has gotten a bit out of control at this point. I understand that it has come to stand in for certain continuing racial dynamics in our society, but really, the injustice against Gates is minor compared to the injustice against so many other black men in America who do not have Gates' privileges. There's some way in which Gates' anger seems of the "Don't you know who I am? I'm a Harvard professor!" variety, but of course it shouldn't matter who Gates is. No one should be arrested in their own home for entering it and talking back to a cop. And frankly, I think Obama has more important work to do that mediate between these two.
But I am glad that one result of this episode is opening the conversation about anger, and I hope the lesson taken will not be that anger is unproductive, but rather that we should all have the right to express our anger and be taken seriously.
My take on this case and the anger issue is a little different. I agree with Leah that there are times when it is pragmatic to stay cool, and other times when expressing one's anger is necessary. But I think the issue of who is allowed to get angry is paramount here. People in power are often allowed to get angry -- in fact, it's often seen as a sign of their power and invulnerability. Other people -- like black men, and women of all colors -- not only risk being completely dismissed as irrational and out of control when they express their anger, but may actually put themselves in danger. The danger element is what is not quite addressed here.
And of course, the people who are least allowed to express their anger are usually the ones who most deserve to be angry -- angry about their own experiences as well as the collective history that they carry around with them.
Now, I happen to think that the Gates/Crowley situation has gotten a bit out of control at this point. I understand that it has come to stand in for certain continuing racial dynamics in our society, but really, the injustice against Gates is minor compared to the injustice against so many other black men in America who do not have Gates' privileges. There's some way in which Gates' anger seems of the "Don't you know who I am? I'm a Harvard professor!" variety, but of course it shouldn't matter who Gates is. No one should be arrested in their own home for entering it and talking back to a cop. And frankly, I think Obama has more important work to do that mediate between these two.
But I am glad that one result of this episode is opening the conversation about anger, and I hope the lesson taken will not be that anger is unproductive, but rather that we should all have the right to express our anger and be taken seriously.