Your book, like Elizabeth Hinton’s “America on Fire,” delves into a decades-long cycle that’s played out in many US cities: Police violence, followed by uprisings, followed by promises for reform and blue ribbon commissions that ultimately produce only “modest change and a photo op.” Did you come out of your reporting with a solid idea of what a better process would look like?

Ellis: I don’t know how you can look at Minneapolis today and say they are better for choosing reform over revolution. The mayor reorganized the public safety department, then there was turnover in the leadership there. The chief who was supposed to lead the transformation of the police force recently resigned in disgrace. Like most police departments in the country, the budget continues to balloon thanks to overtime costs. And at the moment the city is failing to even meet the basics of its court-mandated reforms. By definition this is insanity, right?

I think like anything in local government, having a process for the community to guide designs and offer feedback is important. But I think the starting point has to be a total tear down, not a rebuild. That sounds simplistic, but look at where making changes on the edges has gotten us? Revised training standards and use of force policies have amounted to departments that are effectively the same. The aim needs to be so much higher.

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I’m pretty sure by people they mean “the people” as in the entire or at least a very large portion of people in a given society. Contextually it is obvious that a tiny minority faction is going to lack the popular support needed to launch a successful revolution, and if they attempted to do so in coalition with other factions who don’t share their vision, it will cause conflict. So the point isn’t having the correct theory (which they also don’t have) but rather having widespread consensus and support for that theory. But they can correct me if I misunderstand.