The Violence of Anti-Blackness
Some 170 years ago Frederick Douglass wrote, “Killing a slave, or any colored person,…is not treated as a crime, either by the courts or the community.”1 From the age of slavery through the era of a black president, deadly violence continues to be visited upon black bodies, with relative impunity. What is it about America that has made the black body a prime target for unrelenting violence? In a 1967 speech defending black protestors’ rights to use violence “to rid ourselves of oppression,” Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, then known as H. Rap Brown, said, “Violence is a part of America's culture. It is as American as cherry pie.” While Al-Amin's words received much criticism at the time, he actually spoke a truth about America—especially when it came to the black body—that perhaps even he did not fully grasp. For the violence to which black bodies fall prey in America reflects an often-ignored narrative that is integral to America's very violent identity—an identity that indeed fosters the violent culture that Al-Amin named. It is the narrative of anti-blackness.
In order to understand the complex unremitting violence that is perpetrated upon black bodies, this chapter explores the narrative of anti-blackness and its relationship to America's very identity. It is impossible to examine thoroughly all aspects of this theme in the space of a chapter. The purpose of this chapter is simply to clarify the inherent violence of anti-blackness so as to discern how the cycle of anti-black violence might be broken.
Anti-Blackness: A Narrative of Violence
The narrative of anti-blackness became most palpable with Europeans’ earliest incursions into the African continent. While ancient Greek and Roman scholars were certainly chauvinistic when it came to appraising the body aesthetic of their own people, there is little evidence that color prejudice was integral to their thought or culture. Even as the Greeks described the Africans as “burnt people,” this did not imply any stigma of color. Rather it pointed to their belief concerning the impact that living close to the sun had on a people's pigmentation. In the main, the reality of color prejudice is of Western origination, coming into full relief with the earliest European encounters with Africa.
While the belief that Africans were meant to be slaves was prevalent prior to European encroachments on the African continent, an anti-black narrative was not as apparent until their arrival. As the historian Winthrop Jordan says, “One of the fairest-skinned nations [the English] suddenly came face to face with one of the darkest peoples on the earth.”2 The color difference was so “arresting” that these early European “explorers” of Africa made little of the diverse skin tones among African people. Instead, they typically described them all as “blacke.” In the travel collections of Englishman Richard Hakluyt he illustrates the point in his description of Africans: “This is also to be seen as a secrete work of Nature that throughout all Africke, the regions are extreme hote, and the people very blacke.”3 English explorer John Hawkins was much more succinct but no less direct in his description of the people on Cape Verdes. “They are all black,” he exclaimed.4
Whether describing Africans as black was initially done with malicious intent is debatable; what is clear is that skin color mattered to the Europeans in their encounters with a people seemingly starkly different from themselves. Furthermore, black was not a benign signifier. No less an authority than the Oxford English Dictionary had already established whiteness as a sign of innocence, purity, and goodness while blackness signified vileness, danger, and evil. As far apart as the English complexion was from the African, the meaning of whiteness was from blackness. Consequently, to describe the Africans as black ensured that the Eurocentric color-defined gaze would not remain innocent, if it ever was. It was only the beginning of an anti-blackness that provided the aesthetic justification for the enslavement and other violent acts against the bodies of “black” men and women.
As crucial as skin color was, it was not the only physical feature that astonished these early white intruders and soon-to-be pillagers of Africa, nor was it the only aspect of the anti-black narrative. Europeans also noted, with ominous condescension, the fullness of the Africans’ lips, the broadness of their noses, and the texture of their hair. It soon became very clear that there was more at play than just a shocked realization of the diversity among human creation. In the European imagination, the Africans’ physiognomy signaled a genetic difference. When coupled with the dissimilarity of dress and customs, not to speak of religions, the European interlopers became convinced that the “blackness” of the Africans was more than skin deep. They believed it penetrated through to the very character and soul (which some Europeans claimed Africans did not possess) of the people, thereby signaling a people who were so thoroughly uncivilized that they were more beastly than human. Hakluyt gives evidence of this belief when he reports, “Moores, Morrens, or Negroes a people of beastly living, without a God, lawe, religion, a common wealth, and so scorched and vexed with the heat of the sunne, that in many places they curse it when it riseth.”5
That Africans were likened to beasts was consequential. This beastly descriptor implied not simply that they were wild and uncivilized but also hypersexualized. As Jordan points out, the terms “beastial” and “beastly” carried with them sexual connotations. Thus, when an Englishman described the Africans as beastly “he was frequently as much registering a sense of sexual shock as describing swinish manners….”6 The similarities that the Europeans registered between Africans and “apes” gave way to further insinuations concerning the Africans’ sexual habits. The unfortunate circumstance was that the Europeans’ first encounter with apes and orangutans coincided with their first encounter with the people of Africa. Hence, they were just as startled by these animals’ similarities to humans as they were by what they considered the Africans’ “sub-human” qualities. It required, therefore, only a small leap in the European imagination to conceive of an inherent connection between the African “apes” and the African people. As Jordan argues, it was practically inevitable that Europeans would see a genetic tie between the “beast-like humans,” and the “human-like beasts.” Once such a tie was forged, it was an even easier leap of logic for the Europeans to assume, as Jordan remarks, “a beastly copulation or conjuncture” between the two species.7 By crafting such an indecent link, again as pointed out by Jordan, Europeans were able to “give vent to their feelings that Negroes [Africans] were a lewd, lascivious and wanton people.”8 It was in this way that “blackness” came to signal a people who were grossly uncivilized and dangerously hypersexualized. René Girard's observations concerning the connection between sexuality and violence are instructive in this regard.
Girard describes sex and violence as different sides of the same coin. He explains that sexual excitement and violent impulses elicit identical “bodily reactions.” He goes on to say, “Thwarted sexuality leads naturally to violence.”9 That the early European encroachers onto the African continent posited a sexual connection between wild animals and “uncivilized” Africans only fortified the notion that African men and women were dangerous. If nothing else, it was clear to the white interlopers that these were a people who needed to be patrolled and controlled given their dissolute character and “beastly” disposition.
The violent nature of the anti-black narrative itself now becomes clear. It is about more than a chauvinistic repulsion to skin color. It is a narrative that negates the very humanity of a people; therefore, it is inherently violent. Any ideology or system of thought that objectifies another human being must be understood as violent. Borrowing from the words of Paulo Freire, that which “fails to recognize others as persons,” hence dehumanizes them, is by definition violent. Furthermore, such a system of thought initiates a cycle of violence in which the oppressed, in this instance black bodies, become entrapped. As Freire explains, “There would be no oppressed had there been no prior situation of violence to establish their subjugation.”10 The “prior system” that renders black bodies oppressed bodies is the narrative of anti-blackness (later we shall see how that colludes with the ideology of white supremacy/culture of whiteness). It is in this way that Freire is also right to say that the oppressed are not the initiators of violence.11 In short, the narrative of anti-blackness spawns a multidimensional cycle of violence against black bodies. This brings us to the centrality of this narrative to the American identity.
The anti-black narrative arrived in America with the Puritans and Pilgrims. When America's Pilgrim and Puritan forebears fled England in search of freedom, they believed themselves descendants of an ancient Anglo-Saxon people, “free from the taint of intermarriages,” who uniquely possessed high moral values and an “instinctive love for freedom.”12 Their beliefs reflected an Anglo-Saxon myth that originated with the first-century Roman philosopher Tacitus, who, in his book Germania, touted the unique superiority of these Anglo-Saxon people from the ancient woods of Germany. Fueled by this myth, Americans crossed the Atlantic with a vision to build a nation that was politically and culturally—if not demographically—true to their “exceptional” Anglo-Saxon heritage. As such, America was envisioned as a testament to the sacredness of Anglo-Saxon character and values, if not people. American exceptionalism was Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism. In this regard, to be an Anglo-Saxon was the measure of what it meant to be an American. American identity was equated with Anglo-Saxon identity. In order to safeguard America's mythic Anglo-Saxon vision and sense of self a pervasive culture of whiteness was born. Thus, whiteness became the perfect way to mask the fact that America was an immigrant nation with migrants—even from Europe—who were not actually Anglo-Saxon.
The elevation of whiteness was inevitable since—as noted earlier—whiteness had come to signify purity and moral innocence, a skin tone therefore befitting exceptional Anglo-Saxons. Invariably, therefore, whiteness forged an impregnable wall between America's myth of Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism and that which might compromise it—such as those persons on the other side of whiteness. Hence the birth of white culture, with an anti-black narrative as its defining feature. After all, there was nothing more opposed to whiteness than blackness—not only in color but also in what it signified about a people. To reiterate, blackness signified a lewd, dangerous, and immoral people, while whiteness signaled a chaste, innocent, and virtuous people. In the words of legal scholar Cheryl Harris, “The amalgamation of various European strains into an American identity [that is, Anglo-Saxon identity] was facilitated by an oppositional definition of Black as other.”13 It is this opposition between whiteness and blackness that forms the basis of white supremacist ideology.
With the emergence of a white supremacist ideology two things become clear. First, to state the obvious, the ideology of white supremacy depends on the narrative of anti-blackness, since the notion of white superiority rests on the idea of black inferiority. Second, whiteness itself must be regarded as a violent identity construct inasmuch as it is defined by denigrating that which is nonwhite, notably blackness. This brings us back to the fact of white culture. To reiterate, if America's mythic Anglo-Saxon/white identity was to be protected, then blackness had to be repelled at all cost. This is the work of white culture.
White culture in its various manifestations is that which perpetuates the idea of white superiority and—especially through its legal and extralegal expressions—helps whiteness to stand its ground against any corrupting or threatening intrusions into the white Anglo-Saxon space (such as black bodies). And so once again the reality of America's inherent violence becomes evident. For like white identity, white culture in all of its expressions is intrinsically violent, given its necessary anti-black nature. The fact of the matter is that as long as American identity is grounded in the myth of Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism (and it is), then it is grounded in violence. In this regard, there is no getting around it: anti-black violence is a part of America's original DNA.
No one better reflects the violent anti-black narrative inherent in American identity than America's preeminent founding father, Thomas Jefferson. In pondering the possibility of emancipation and whether or not blacks and whites could live together in the same land, Jefferson points to the differences between the two races. As he argues, “The first difference which strikes us is that of colour…. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races…. Besides those of color, figure and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race.” Jefferson goes on in great detail to explain how such physical differences are part and parcel of the differences in work ethic, intelligence, judgment, and sexual propriety between black and white people. Jefferson ultimately concludes, “This unfortunate difference of color, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people,” and if emancipated they are to “be removed beyond the reach” of mixing with white people.14 Jefferson was speaking of an involuntary emigration of black people from America, commensurate to their forced migration to the land. Given the fact that such plans never came to fruition, measures to insure the purity of whiteness were extended to a program of unrelenting violence perpetrated against black bodies. Before exploring this further, it is important to look specifically at the impact of the anti-black narrative on black women's bodies to appreciate the particular forms of anti-black violence that affect their bodies.
Anti-Blackness and the Black Female Body
As grave as the impact that the European anti-black gaze had on black people in general, it had a unique bearing upon black women. This gaze was shaped not only by color but also by gender. Thus, it involved a racialized standard of beauty that indicated whether or not one was a “proper woman.” The visage of a beautiful woman in the English mind was well established during the Elizabethan period, with the queen serving as the perfect exemplar:
Her cheeke, her chinne, her neck, her nose,
This was a lillye, that was a rose;
Her hande so white as whales bone,
Her finger tipt with Cassidone;
Her bosome, sleeke as Paris plaster,
Held upp twoo bowles of Alabaster.15
Shakespeare would give further evidence of this racially determined gendered aesthetic in his sonnet to the “Dark Lady.” In this sonnet the poet defends his attraction to the “dark lady,” well aware that “In the old age black was not counted fair/Or if it were, it bore not beauty's name.” In describing the dark lady he writes:
My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips’ red:
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks.16
Once again, this aesthetic assessment was not benign when it came to black women in America—especially given the enslaved realities of their lives. As far as black women were from the standard of “white” beauty, they were also far removed from the standard of femininity and what it meant to be a “lady.” If “fair skin” and “rosy cheeks” suggested what would come to be known as a “Victorian lady”—pure, chaste, in need of being protected from the hardships and evils of life—the dark skin, wiry hair, “dun” breasts suggested just the opposite. As is well documented, black women became the perfect foil to white women. While white women were considered virginal, pure angels in need of protection, black women were considered wanton, lascivious Jezebels in need of controlling.17 To reiterate an earlier point, according to early European logic, black African women were so lewd that even the African apes were sexually drawn to them. Once again, such logic did not escape the white imagination of Thomas Jefferson as he argued that the orangutan has more of a preference for black women than for “his own species.”18
Black women were essentially entrapped within the Catch-22 of a violent “intersection.” Inasmuch as they did not meet the white female standard of beauty, they were not regarded as “ladies” to be respected; the more that their black skin marked them for a way of living that defied ideal “womanhood,” the more validity was given to the meaning of their black body aesthetic. Their blackness signified that they were in fact not proper women; they were not Victorian ladies, even as it ensured that they would never enjoy the privilege of being treated as a Victorian lady. Worse yet, it ensured brutal assaults against their bodies. Most particularly, it enabled white men literally to rape black women with moral and legal impunity. In the logic of the anti-black narrative, a black woman could never be raped since she was an unabashed temptress and thus responsible for any such assault against her body.
To understand this anti-black Catch-22 is to appreciate the layered meaning in Sojourner Truth's now famous 1851 “Ain't I a Woman” speech, delivered at a Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio. In this speech Sojourner is at once affirming her black-bodied self and defending her womanhood. She is contesting the very notion that her skin color, hair texture, and physical features mark her as anything less than a woman even if they relegate her to a way of life that betrayed Victorian notions of womanhood. She is virtually contesting the anti-black narrative that has consigned her to a life of denigration and brutality. She is essentially trying to escape the violent cycle of anti-blackness by offering a nonviolent narrative of resistance—to which we will return. For now it is important to understand the profoundly violent reality of the narrative of anti-blackness and its centrality to American identity.
In short, the narrative of anti-blackness itself is violent. It therefore spawns a cycle of violence with fatal results for black bodies. Worse yet, this violent narrative is integral to America's very identity. And so it seems that not only is violence in general “as American as cherry pie” but so too is violence against black bodies.
The Deadly Impact of America's Anti-Blackness
That black bodies bare the brunt of America's war on drugs, biased policing, and “tough-on-crime” measures is well documented. However, what is not recognized is the fact that these assaults on black bodies reflect the unspoken violence of the anti-black narrative that is woven into the fabric of America's mythic Anglo-Saxon identity. It is no wonder, therefore, that African Americans are 5.1 times more likely than whites to be incarcerated. In fact, in twelve states blacks make up over 50 percent of the prison population, with Maryland heading the list at 72 percent. Black people make up 13.2 percent of the U.S. population, but almost 40 percent of the prison population. An even more disconcerting manifestation of the anti-black narrative is its impact on young black bodies, thus assuring what has become known as a school-to-prison pipeline. This pipeline is evident in the racially disproportionate rates of school suspensions and juvenile sentencing. According to recent Department of Education data, black males are three times more likely than their white counterparts to be suspended from school, while black girls are six times more likely than their white counterparts, perhaps reflecting the intersecting realities of race and gender. In fact, black girls are the fastest growing population in the juvenile justice system. The anti-black narrative is also realized through socioeconomic policies that trap over 27 percent of black bodies in a cycle of poverty, thus rendering black children four times more likely than white or Asian children and significantly more likely than Hispanic children to be likewise trapped. In short, because of the violent anti-black narrative that helps to define America's identity, black bodies are trapped in a cycle of violence from poverty to incarceration to death. This brings us to the reality of fatal policing.
Again, inasmuch as the anti-black narrative is central to America's collective identity, it has insinuated itself into the collective American consciousness. Consequently, it has successfully implanted deep within the American psyche the image of the black body as a dangerously criminal body and an ever-present threat to whiteness. Numerous studies show this to be the case. They reveal that when white people, in particular, see a black body, they see a criminal. In one study conducted to investigate the impact that the perception of a black person as criminal might have on police officers, a video game was used to present a series of young men. Some of the men were armed, while others were unarmed. Half of each category of men were white, the other half black. The object of the game was to shoot the armed targets. The study found that the participants were more likely to shoot an unarmed black target, and rarely missed shooting the armed black target. At the same time, they were least likely to shoot the white target, whether or not armed. There are numerous other studies that reveal almost “automatic, unconscious” responses to black bodies, as if those bodies are threatening or criminal in and of themselves.19
While the above study focused on black male bodies, it should be noted that the black female body is seen as a dangerous and immoral body as well, perhaps in a more gender-specific way. While not regularly portrayed as particularly predatory, she is often portrayed as criminally immoral and most times mean and angry. The Jezebel has morphed into the “welfare queen.” Various studies have shown that the image of the black female welfare offender is just as implanted within the public consciousness as the criminal black male.20
Given the pervasive impact of the anti-black narrative on the white imagination it is no wonder that the officer who shot and killed eighteen-year-old Michael Brown thought it reasonable to describe Brown as a “demon,” just as it seemed reasonable that the officer who killed twelve-year-old Tamir Rice might mistake him for a twenty-one-year-old man, or that an officer would perceive Sandra Bland as threatening during a traffic stop that led to her arrest and death. The point of the matter is, as long as the violent narrative of anti-blackness is a decisive aspect of America's Anglo-Saxon identity, then black bodies will be disproportionately impacted by denigrating and deadly violence.
To reiterate, the narrative of anti-blackness is inherently violent, as its sole purpose is the denigration and dehumanization of black people. This narrative alone would have a devastating impact on black lives. However, as it has interacted with America's narrative of Anglo–Saxon exceptionalism and thus become an integral part of America's identity, it is even more deadly. Consequently, as it is a part of America's very sense of self it has practically eliminated the possibility for black bodies to be truly safe in America. Therefore, if black bodies are ever to be safe to survive and thrive with dignity in America then the violent cycle of anti-blackness must be broken.
Breaking the Cycle of Anti-Blackness
How are we to break the cycle of violence perpetuated by the violent narrative of anti-blackness? It is here where Jesus's crucifying death and resurrection speak to our situation.
The cross represents the power that denigrates human bodies, destroys life, and preys on the most vulnerable in society. As the cross is defeated, so too is that power. The impressive factor is how it is defeated. It is defeated by a nonviolent, life-affirming force that is none other than God's resurrection of Jesus. It cannot be stressed enough that God's resurrecting power is one that by definition respects the sacred integrity of all human bodies and the sanctity of all life. This is significant in two ways as we reflect on the narrative of anti-blackness.
Black feminist literary artist and social critic Audre Lorde once said, “The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.”21 What the crucifixion–resurrection event reveals is that God does not use the master's tools. God does not utilize the violence exhibited in the cross to defeat deadly violence itself. As Lorde suggests, while this may bring a temporary solution, it does not bring an end to the culture of deadly violence itself. Rather, one stays entrapped in that very culture. As such, “only the most narrow parameters of change are possible and allowable.” This implies therefore that the only way to defeat violent power is by nonviolent means.
There is no doubt that the cross reflects the depth and scope of human violence. The cross in this respect represents the consuming violence of the world. It points to a world that is saturated with violence. This violence includes not simply the physical brutality meant to harm bodies, but also the systems, structures, narratives, and constructs that do harm, including the narrative of anti-blackness and the systems and structures it fosters in conjunction with the narrative of Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism. To reiterate, anything that would devalue the life of another is violent. Through Jesus, God enters into this world of violence, yet does not take it into God's very self. Thus, God responds to the violence of the world not in an eye-for-an-eye manner. Instead, God responds in a way that negates and denounces the violence that perverts and demeans the integrity of human lives. God accomplishes this by affirming life, as seen in the very resurrection of Jesus. Essentially, God responds to the violence of the cross—the violence of the world—in a nonviolent but forceful manner.
It is important to understand that nonviolence is not the same as passivity or accommodation to violence. Rather, it is a forceful response that protects the integrity of life. This is even clearer as one recognizes that Jesus was crucified in the first place because of his active resistance to the violent political and religious powers of his time, which trapped various people in violent, hence crucifying, realities of living. The point is that while violence seeks to denigrate and do harm to the bodies of people, nonviolence seeks to free bodies from denigrating and deadly violence. By not resorting to violence, it seeks to break the very cycle of violence itself. It is in this way that the crucifixion–resurrection event reflects nothing less than a counternarrative to the crucifying narrative of violence. This has implications for breaking the cycle of violence perpetuated by the narrative of anti-blackness.
Anti-Blackness and the Matter of Black Lives
Even as people must consistently resist and dismantle the systems and structures of anti-black violence that serve to protect the myth of Anglo-Saxon (white) exceptionalism, something just as essential must be done to counter the narrative of anti-blackness. That is an actual counternarrative that affirms the value of black bodies. This narrative must disturb the collective consciousness of America—especially white America—if black bodies are ever truly to be safe. As noted above, Sojourner Truth attempted to put forth such a counternarrative in her “Ain't I a Woman” speech. In that speech she contested the notion that black women were anything less than women. With the repeated refrain of “ain't I a woman?,” she was attempting to sever the link in the white male imagination, especially between black female bodies and lewd, bestial bodies. The refrain black lives matter represents a counternarrative similar to that of Sojourner Truth's. It attempts to sever the link within the collective white imagination between black bodies and criminal bodies. In this regard, the refrain black lives matter is just as significant as the movement's active protest against the systemic and structural violence perpetrated against black bodies. For again, the refrain itself offers a direct counternarrative to the narrative of anti-blackness as it loudly affirms the sacred value of black lives. With this being the case, it was inevitable that as the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag went viral and as it moved into the public square, whiteness would stand its ground with the refrain “all lives matter.” Essentially, this latter refrain was nothing less than an utter refusal to acknowledge the value of black lives, and thus a refusal to reject the narrative of anti-blackness. So, in the end, it is essential that the black lives matter refrain be consistently repeated in the public square. It must constantly counteract the hold of the narrative of anti-blackness on the white American psyche. Until such time as that is achieved, the words of Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin will continue to speak a truth: violence against black bodies will remain as American as cherry pie.
1. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. Written by Himself. Boston: Published at the Anti-Slavery Office, no.25 Cornhill 1845, docsouth.unc.edu, 24.
2. Winthrop D. Jordan, White over Black: American Attitudes toward the Negro, 1550–1812 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 6.
3. The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation ed. Richard Hakluyt and Edmund Goldsmid, onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu (volume x1, 102).
4. Quoted by Charles Johnson, Patricia Smith, and the WGBH Series Research Team, in Africans in America: America's Journey through Slavery (San Diego: Harvest Books, 1999), 11.
5. Hakluyt and Goldsmid, eds., Principal Navigations, 94.
6. Jordan, White over Black, 33.
7. Ibid., 31.
8. Ibid. 32.
9. René Girard, Violence and the Sacred, trans. Patrick Gregory (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), 35–36.
10. Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th anniversary ed. (New York: Continuum, 2005), 55.
11. Ibid.
12. Tacitus, Germania, Medieval Sourcebook, http://www.fordham.edu.
13. Cheryl I. Harris, “Whiteness as Property,” Harvard Law Review 106, no. 8 (June 1993): 1742. In this article Harris provides a comprehensive and insightful analysis of the meaning of whiteness as property through scrupulous examination of case law.
14. “Thomas Jefferson on the African Race 1781,” excerpted from Notes on the State of Virginia, http://www.historytools.org.
15. Richard Puttenham and George Puttenham, Partheniades (1579), quoted in Winthrop D. Jordan, White over Black, 8.
16. William Shakespeare, Sonnet 130, quoted in ibid., 9.
17. See, for instance, Kelly Brown Douglas, Sexuality and the Black Church (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999).
18. Jefferson, Notes.
19. Joshua Correll et al., “The Police Officer's Dilemma: Using Ethnicity to Disambiguate Potentially Threatening Individuals,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (2002): 1314–29, discussed in “Across the Thin Blue Line: Police Officers and Racial Bias in the Decision to Shoot,” http://www.fairandimpartialpolicing.com.
20. See, for instance, Mark Peffley, Jon Hurwirtz, and Paul M. Sniderman, “Racial Stereotypes and Whites’ Political Views of Blacks in the Context of Welfare and Crime,” American Journal of Political Science 41, no. 1 (January 1997): 30–60.
21. Audre Lorde, “The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House,” in Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches (Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press, 2007), 110–13.