Every police brutality case comes with calls for reform: better training, more civilian review boards, greater diversity on the beat. Now comes the defund movement, which is more basic. It looks at the very role of police in society.

Court watchers have expressed concern about whether the Supreme Court would uphold its standard of judicial independence. In two rulings this week, the conservative-leaning court dealt blows to an administration that relied on it as an ally.

It was an act of violence so visceral that when the public saw what had been done, the outrage came in a wave.

We’re referring, of course, to George Floyd dying under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer in May. The bystander video that captured his death has triggered some of the biggest racial justice protests in recent years.

But we could be talking about the beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers in 1991, which was also caught on tape. The footage, coupled with the acquittal of the officers involved, led to rioting across LA in 1992. Or we could be citing the lynching of Emmett Till, a Chicago teenager who was brutally beaten to death in Mississippi in 1955 for allegedly whistling at a white woman (an accusation that was eventually recanted). The photo of his disfigured face was one of the sparks that ignited the civil rights movement. 

In this episode of “Precedented,” we look at the cycles of racial violence, protest, and limited progress that marks 20th- and 21st-century America. What lessons should we be learning from this history? And what will it take to keep moving us forward? 

“If history has repeated itself and where we are is very familiar, then maybe ... a new direction is in order,” says Frederick W. Gooding, assistant professor of African American studies at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth. “Not necessarily a revolution, but maybe revolutionary thought.” 

You can find other episodes of the series here. - Jessica Mendoza and Jingnan Peng/Staff

The world’s two most populous countries will have an outsize role in shaping the century – and how peaceful it is. After this week, a relatively small patch of remote mountains may have an outsize role in shaping their relationship. 

For many Black Americans, this Juneteenth is particularly bittersweet. Columnist Ken Makin explores the significance of this commemoration of freedom as both a celebration and a call to action.

When a problem seems insurmountable – like the millions of tons of plastic choking oceans – it’s easy to accept the status quo. It takes vision, tenacity, and ingenuity, which Mary Crowley has in spades, to fight back. 

A prevalent theory for more than a century is that trade reduces military rivalry between countries. Shared prosperity dampens national pride or jealousy. In the 20th century, the theory faltered after a few industrializing nations, such as Germany, used war to boost their access to markets and resources. The theory is now being tested again, oddly enough in the remote Himalayas.

On June 15 for four hours, soldiers from India and China engaged in hand-to-hand fighting over a disputed and desolate border. Both countries blamed the other for instigating their first deadly conflict in 45 years. Yet since the incident, both seem eager to prevent escalation. If peace prevails, there could be a renewed lesson about the benefits of cooperation in trade as well as the sharing of ideas and people. One war-making passion – revenge – would have been held in check.

India and China are the world’s two most populous nations. They also are neighbors that possess nuclear weapons. Yet perhaps their most important common trait right now is that they are eagerly trying to upgrade trade ties with other countries. China has its grand regional plan called the Belt and Road Initiative. India is pursuing bilateral trade pacts with Australia, the United Kingdom, and others. All that may be a damper on their flare-up along a mountainous border.

Even though China’s unelected Xi Jinping and India’s elected Narendra Modi are ardent nationalists, each feels pressure to end poverty. Their attempts to forge national identities along either religious or ethnic lines must bow to their people’s desire for economic interdependence and growth – and thus peace.

In addition, the global trading system set up after World War II comes with a big and often-used stick: economic sanctions on countries that engage in land grabs, such as Russia’s taking of Crimea in 2014.

Friction between nations arises when they perceive a scarcity – in material resources, access to markets, finances, warm-water ports for ships, and so on. But as scholar Steven Pinker proved in his book “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,” conflicts have declined over centuries as nations chose peaceful trade as a way to quell fears of scarcity. “Zero-sum plunder gave way to positive-sum trade. People increasingly controlled their impulses and sought to cooperate with their neighbors,” he wrote. And in 2008, a study by Sorbonne University found that multilateral openness in trade deters global conflict.

The rules of a principled international order need to be constantly reinforced and improved. That order helps guide nations on how to compete peacefully in order to avoid violent competition. India and China were able to contain their last border standoff in 2017. If they resolve their differences again in 2020, they might have learned to put the common good ahead of their separate anxieties.

View gallery