No American city has been as central to this decade’s struggles for social justice as Minneapolis. George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police on May 25, 2020 set off the biggest civil rights protest surge in our national history. Five and a half years later, ICE decided to make an example out of Minneapolis with a quasi-military invasion—which prompted a shockingly effective organized grassroots backlash that will be studied for years to come.

For the rest of the country, which associated Minneapolis more with “Minnesota Nice” than with fiery uprisings, the city may have seemed like an odd epicenter for our violent racial strife. But as Justin Ellis shows masterfully in his new book “The Cruelty of Nice Folks,” the history of race in Minneapolis makes a mockery of all that niceness. Ellis, a Minneapolis native who now writes for Defector, moved back to his hometown in order to do the research that allowed him to tell several intertwined stories: his own family history, George Floyd, the legacy of police violence, and Minneapolis’s long and sordid record of Nice White Liberals who failed to meaningfully reckon with the injustices growing on the other side of town.

I interviewed Ellis about Minneapolis, the failures of white liberalism, and whether defunding the police is possible. Our conversation is below.

How Things Work: Early on in this book, you mention a dynamic that I’ve definitely witnessed in newsrooms, which is that when some big story with a strong racial element happens (i.e. George Floyd), editors tend to try to pull in every black writer to write about it. On one hand, this can pigeonhole black writers. On the other hand, your writing about George Floyd led directly to this book. How did you make the decision to pursue the book project?

Justin Ellis: I struggled with this from the jump, even as far back as writing the essay for The Atlantic that ultimately led to the book. I’ve worked in journalism and media for over 20 years, I’ve seen the way newsrooms pursue and abandon diversity inside the house, then scramble when they feel the urgent need to tell stories about black life (only in someone’s death). It’s all exhausting and insane, and by the time Floyd was murdered I thought I was done with my journalism career.

Everything with Floyd hit so much more personally for me. I lived a few blocks away from where he was killed while I was in middle school, I could tell you what the inside of Cup Food looked like from memory. More than that, I felt really motivated by the dissonance a number of people had over such a brutal police killing happening in Minneapolis. That people would believe a crime like Floyd’s murder couldn’t happen in Minneapolis says a lot about the myths and lies perpetrated in the city’s name. Ultimately, I thought a book would let me explore that more in my own terms with my own understanding of the city.

Hubert Humphrey is mostly remembered today as a guy who lost a presidential race to Richard Nixon. But you have a fascinating section on his time as mayor of Minneapolis, where he was kind of the prototypical Nice White Liberal. What can the nice liberals of today learn from Hubert Humphrey about the limitations to that governing style?

Ellis: Humphrey really became the template for what we’d now call a standard bearer moderate Democrat. You do not get an Amy Klobuchar, Josh Shapiro, even a Joe Biden, without him. At the time when Humphrey became mayor in the 1940s he saw the threats to Black and Jewish families in Minneapolis in stark terms and he often was willing to personally intervene on the behalf of people, whether that was trouble with the police or being able to walk into certain restaurants or businesses. He saw the power in organizing committees and outside groups to offer policy ideas or create pressure around fixing employment disparity and housing segregation. He was also a model technocrat. He fully embraced this idea of giving things like “the race issue” serious study and finding solutions through lengthy reports. He was one of the earliest local politicians to believe that you could fix policing through better education and training. Credit where it is due, Humphrey could have won office without doing any of this, but saw it as a bigger moral calling.

But ultimately Humphrey’s legacy on the local level is creating the theater of equality. Every single one of those things I mentioned above are from the playbook we see today. It’s a lot of measures that help reassure white liberal voters without giving up any of their standing, while leaving marginalized groups always waiting, saddled with this expectation of fealty to one party because the men wearing blue ties acknowledge racism exists, even if they never want to take responsibility.

It’s telling that all of Humphrey’s grand ideas are all for nothing because of his ambition for higher office. He won two terms as mayor and jumped to run for Senate, and in the process left Minneapolis essentially the same as he found it for black families.

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.

After George Floyd, the Minneapolis City Council voted to end the city’s police department as it was constituted. Much of your book follows the long and ultimately unsuccessful fight over trying to achieve that vision. Do you think that was always doomed, or were there strategic changes that could have been made that would have allowed the city to end up in a better place?

Ellis: I really go back and forth on this. The machinery of so many cities like Minneapolis makes it seem near impossible to break up modern policing. The city’s charter commission, an unelected board whose only job is to give guidance to the city council on proposed changes to the charter, basically a kind of local constitution, was able to stall the policing referendum for one year just by pulling some procedural bullshit over a Zoom meeting.

I do think there were flaws with the proposal Minneapolis residents had to vote on in 2021, namely that it was a loosely defined black hole that voters could fill with their fears. It more or less was a ballot question that said “do you support ending policing and giving the city council space to come up with a better idea over time?” To succeed in a movement like this you need something like a diorama, a model people can wrap their heads around to visualize community safety, showing specialists in dealing with unhoused populations, domestic violence, addiction, and maybe even a violent crimes unit. And you have to get people to understand one thing: “this is a starting point,” because it’s going to take time, and most likely the current police will remain in place over the transition. Because people vote scared. There’s a reason why the final weeks of almost every election we’re all inundated with ads barely above grindhouse movies.

I think my most naive or idealistic belief is that you need a mayor willing to stake their career to support this kind of transformation. In Minneapolis you had a mayor—and even police chief—who actively campaigned against rebuilding the police department. It shouldn’t be a political calculus to say “the police as currently constituted do not really work for this city or for you.”

Somewhat related question: it has always bothered me that the debate over defunding the police (which, to be sure, was never a genuine goal of the Democratic establishment) always devolves so quickly into bitching over the term itself, rather than substantive discussions of the underlying issues. Based on Minneapolis’s experience, do you see a path forward for the defund movement?

Ellis: We live in the most absurd era of bullshit rhetoric. It’s infuriating to see how “defund the police” became this weapon that could be so easily used against anyone who wanted to point out that law enforcement budgets operate on the same logic as a venture capitalist’s wet dream of hockey stick growth. Overtime costs for most departments only go up while case clearance rates mostly remain low and black people keep dying. Yet it’s wrong to say “maybe we could use that money in better ways,” because then you wind up as a chyron on Fox & Friends.

It’s now as bloated and captured as “woke.” The problem is “police reform” is the worst of all these terms because of how easily it is co-opted and can provide cover for cynical moderate liberals and the revanchinists on the other side. In the years leading up to Floyd’s death, local activists in Minneapolis were actually successful in clawing back or diverting money from the city’s police budget. And then Floyd was killed. And Dolal Idd. And Amir Locke. I think the way forward increasingly is going to mean bending light in the direction of an abolition people can live with in their communities. I think it will amount to all the ways police departments can have responsibilities, equipment and people peeled away. Or, to quote Grover Norquist, “to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

Share

Your own life—growing up in Minneapolis, moving away, then returning home in 2020 to both take care of your mother and to explore your own family history—is woven into this book. How do you think Minneapolis has shaped your life personally, in a way that wouldn’t have been the same had you come from another city?

Ellis: One of the things I really wanted to get at in the book is the liberal tendency to think that things will get better over time, that change can be incremental. That everything works through the often invoked and misquoted “long arc of the moral universe.” This is something that got ingrained in me at a very young age, that society is an ongoing group project that we can make better, but the results likely won’t arrive in your own lifetime. There’s an incredible chapter in Kwame Ture and Charles Hamilton’s Black Power: The Politics Of Liberation in America, that picks apart all the ways traditional coalition building is a busted premise because it works off the belief that institutions are inherently legitimate and can be salvaged if they break bad, and that you can have a working alliance between people who have always been on secure footing in the country and the people who have been traditionally vulnerable.

Now we’re seeing all the ways these traditional political teamups are failing and have so much evidence that incrementalism is ultimately bullshit that helps serve entrenched power. I think growing up around this kind of thinking helped me ground the book in the fact that a belief in good intentions or some unseen moral horizon ultimately contribute to a different, but just as devastating, form of white supremacy.

The book’s epilogue is about the recent ICE invasion of Minneapolis, and people’s remarkably successful fight against the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation efforts. In my modest amount of reporting in Minneapolis this year, I repeatedly heard activists talk about the ways that the 2020 uprisings laid the groundwork for the actions against ICE. Do you think that’s true, and if so, how?

Ellis: Yes and no. I think on a practical, or maybe tactical level, the groundwork definitely came out of the pandemic and the period after Floyd’s death. Yes, it’s organizing through apps like Signal, but it’s also the growing influence of mutual aid. I think it’s also devising alternative methods for block-by-block safety without police. Before there were people on corners with whistles, there were protectors and watch shifts in George Floyd Square. In the aftermath of Floyd one neighborhood in south Minneapolis started an armed patrol and filed a class action lawsuit against the city because police response times to 911 calls was negligible.

More broadly, what I saw in Metro Surge made me think about the toll of the immediate years after Floyd’s death. It’s true that for many people it was a wake up call to police abuses or the underlying rage over the city’s neglect. Could that make people feel more prepared, or more outraged when ICE arrived? Yes. But something I also wondered about was, frankly, white guilt, which can be just as animating. This is a city that had the eyes of the world focused on it for a year after a black man died under a policeman’s knee and then failed to change its police department. For some people, this likely represented a second chance at completing a white savior action.

But in my talks back in Minneapolis while promoting the book, something that kept coming up in conversation is that the outpouring to support immigrant families, while noble, quietly whistles past all the same needs that have been unaddressed in the city’s black community. I do think it’s true something did crack in the city’s psyche because of Metro Surge, because there was a new willingness to use the protective powers of whiteness to aid migrant families or just face down masked goons. But it’s hard to reconcile all that effort, to say nothing of the near-universal praise the city received, with the persistent systems of inequity that made both immigrants and black families vulnerable in the city.

You can order “The Cruelty of Nice Folks” from an independent bookseller, or wherever books are sold.

Leave a comment

Also

• Related reading: Talk Louder About Defunding the Police; The Consequences of Rejecting “Defund the Police.” In January, I covered the general strike in Minneapolis and ICE’s murder of Alex Pretti.

• A lot of people in Minneapolis are still reeling from the effects of the ICE raids. You can find a vetted list of mutual aid organizations to donate to right here.

• You can find an archive of previous How Things Work interviews with authors and other newsmakers here. The archives are free to read, and this entire site is also free to read. That is possible because readers—people just like you—kick in a few bucks to make it economically possible for me to run this place without a paywall. If you can afford the small price of $6 a month or $60 a year, please click the button below and become a paid subscriber to help keep us alive. Thanks for being here.

Subscribe now

On July 12, Columbia City experienced a hiphop/R&B/funk event organized by Beatwalk. A festival held primarily on a closed off section of South Ferdinand Street, Beatwalk includes participation from small area businesses (including Island Soul and Taco City) and a good number of  performances (including singer/pianist Darrius Willrich and The Double Dutch Divas). Because the weather was perfect—not too hot but lots of sun—people crowded the street, most of them Black, middle-aged, middle class, with kids and grandkids. Also in attendance was, much to the surprise of Beatwalk’s organizers, Kshama Sawant’s team. They had three tables and about 10 volunteers searching for voters in the race for Congressional District 9, a seat that Adam Smith has held since 1997. 

Now, why is this at all important? For one, as Beatwalk’s director Tisha Gallow pointed out to me in a text: “The fact that [Sawant] even knew about Beatwalk is impressive because it is small and all about community… It’s a mini Black Festival in South Seattle.” It’s mostly absent from Seattle’s main cultural radar. But somehow it’s on Sawant’s. But it’s clearly not on that of her main rival in the race, the conventional and pro-war Dem Adam Smith (Melissa Chaudhry, the third main candidate in the race can be dismissed for reasons relating to her non-public position on LGBTQ rights and her bizarre plan to eventually do a party “switcheroo” if she wins a slot in the primaries.)  

Why wasn’t Smith in Columbia City on Sunday? Kate Bond, Beatwalk’s operations manager, has this answer: “Adam Smith not showing might loosely relate to a lack of visibility into what happens in SE Seattle because we are so often overlooked.” In an email sent the day after Beatwalk, Smith’s team countered her interpretation by claiming that Team Smith is actually very plugged in. They had attended “Auburn 4th, Federal Way 4th, Kent Cornucopia, Mercer Island Summer, and Seattle Pride.” But Sawant’s team not only attended two of those mentioned events (Kent Cornucopia, Pride), but also, and get ready, attended: Green River Farm Stand, Federal Way Farmers Market, SeaTack Farmers Market, Music at Angle Lake Park, Kent Music at Morrill Meadows Park, Auburn Farmers Market, Trans Pride, and 13 more events. And while Smith was attending the Auburn 4th, Sawant attended the Somali Independence Day in Rainier Beach on July 4th. What a class difference.

Despite the criticisms Seattle’s most-famous socialist faces from the left and right, and criticisms that often appear with racist and sexist baggage—scolds from the “know your place” crowd, if I may borrow an expression by the LA/Seattle-based filmmaker Zia Mohajerjasbi—it’s impossible to dismiss Sawant’s determination, resolution, and organizational finesse. 

It’s not enough to say she is divisive. That explains next to nothing. Nor can Sawant’s past successes (she was elected once for what used to be Position 2 on the Seattle City Council, and two times for what became and still is the 3rd District in City Council) be attributed to her strictly leftist positions. Sawant means business, and so easily stands out among the wafflers and the candidates who take voters for granted. For her, every vote counts.

Combine that ground game in an emerging political climate that’s become more and more anti-war and critical of Israel’s total destruction of Gaza and swaths of Lebanon, and you have a real recipe for an Adam Smith disaster. Indeed, his kind (established Dems), have recently been dethroned by social democrats and progressives in New York and Colorado—in part because they have yet to provide an answer to the “Palestinian question” that involves peace; and in part because the Democratic Socialists of America’s candidates are, like Sawant, serious political organizers. 

To make matters worse for Smith, mainstream media is facing Israeli messaging with tougher questions, as exemplified by the recent appearance of Israel’s ambassador to the US, Michael Leiter on CBS’s Face The Nation With Margaret Brennan. During the show, Leiter, who claimed J Street (a liberal Jewish American organization that doesn’t support the current Israeli government) was “irrelevant” and not really Jewish. Brennan did not at all hide her shock at this brazen assertion. 

But Sawant’s position on Gaza, her push for higher wages and affordable housing for the working classes, and her call to end Immigration and Customs Enforcement are not enough to beat Smith. Indeed, Melissa Chaudhry held similar positions when she ran against Smith in 2024, but she still lost by a whopping 33 percent. Why? Because Chaudhry didn’t have Sawant’s organizational capacity. In the coming days, her team will be found at the main Link stops, at a grocery store in Skyway, and, of course, the next Beatwalk.

The post Sawant’s Ground Game Against Adam Smith Is Getting Red Hot  appeared first on The Stranger.

Tech titans claim the genre inspired them. But all they’ve done is graft their politics onto stories of a better future

- by Ali Rıza Taşkale

Read on Aeon

The Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina died on Saturday, after what reports have called a "brief and sudden illness" following an official visit to Ukraine. He was 71. In 2003 Graham succeeded ancient dread Confederate mummy Strom Thurmond in the Senate, and was an actively malevolent force in American society for all the remaining 23 years of his life, at a scale larger than he'd been an actively malevolent force in American society for the preceding 48.

Graham's hatreds and bigotries were bog standard for his party, and they were legion. He hated gay and queer people; he hated black and brown people; he hated Muslims; he hated liberals; he hated efforts to make the nation more just, the environment cleaner, the future better. He hated free speech and the free press and privacy for anyone else. He hated the idea that the United States ought ever to be constrained by anything other than its own self-interest, as defined exclusively by guys like him. He hated the expectation that the United States would ever project its might with anything less than maximal imperial violence and bloodlust. He hated all of these with blithe good-ol'-boy cheer and the sneer of the frontrunner. He went on The Daily Show a bunch, so that both sides could playact a kind of broadminded comity that the suckers they both held in contempt just lap right up. Guh hyuk hyuk hyuk, isn't it charming how I want all of y'awl dead.

For a little while in the aughts and again at intervals Graham played at a kind of shriekingly insincere, cornpone Bible College John McCain act, pretending to part with his party on judicial nominees, on immigration reform, on gun control, on vaccines, when that fake disunity could be performed safely at the "sponsoring a doomed, dead-on-arrival bill" or "going on Meet the Press" stage and abandoned long before anybody had to cast a vote. Like many in his party he pretended to care about decorum and civility when he thought Donald Trump was just a freak novelty act the establishment would eventually crush; like everyone in his party he ditched that pretense as soon as the prediction turned out to be wrong. He spent the last decade of his life letting Donald Trump wear him as a glove and telling himself it was the other way around. It bought him the war with Iran he'd worked for decades to make happen, and he fucked off the mortal coil before he could be made to reckon with it being a failure.