Black History Month Day 13: Policing Has a History We Avoid
Black History Fact:
Modern policing in the American South did not simply appear as a neutral civic institution. It evolved in part from organized slave patrols — armed groups empowered by law to monitor, control, and capture enslaved people, and to prevent gatherings, literacy, movement, and resistance.
Those patrols were not informal mobs. They were structured, funded, and legally protected. Men were required to serve. They could enter homes without permission. They could question, detain, whip, and sometimes kill with broad legal immunity. Their job was not crime prevention in the modern sense. Their job was social control — maintaining a racial order built into the economy.
After the Civil War, the institution did not vanish. It transformed.
Many former patrolmen became early sheriffs and local police officers. Black Codes criminalized ordinary life for newly freed Black citizens — vagrancy laws, loitering laws, labor contract laws — and law enforcement became the mechanism to push people back into forced labor through convict leasing. Arrest replaced the whip, but the function was similar: control movement, control labor, control freedom.
Understanding this history does not mean every officer today shares those beliefs. Individuals are not the same as institutions. But institutions carry design. They inherit purpose, habits, and authority structures long after the language changes.
We cannot understand modern disparities without that context.
Why are certain neighborhoods policed more heavily than others? Why are minor infractions enforced differently across communities? Why does the presence of law enforcement create safety in some communities and fear in others? These patterns did not arise in a vacuum. They reflect generations of policy built on suspicion rather than protection.
For many Black Americans, distrust of policing is not an abstract political position. It is learned behavior passed through families. Grandparents who lived under Jim Crow taught caution. Parents taught compliance strategies to survive traffic stops. Children grow up learning rules that others never have to learn.
That is memory, not paranoia.
When people say “just comply,” they are often speaking from a historical experience in which compliance reliably led to safety. But history shows that for many citizens, compliance did not guarantee survival. The gap between those experiences creates the modern divide in perception.
This is why reform conversations so often fail. We discuss training, funding levels, or equipment without addressing foundational purpose. We debate tactics while avoiding origins.
Yet origins shape outcomes.
If an institution was designed partly for surveillance and containment of a specific population, reform cannot succeed by merely improving public relations. Community trust cannot be commanded; it must be rebuilt through acknowledgment.
Historical honesty is not anti-police. It is pro-reality.
It allows officers who serve honorably to understand why some citizens tense instead of relax when a cruiser turns the corner. It explains why accountability matters more than reassurance. And it clarifies why cosmetic change — new slogans, new uniforms, new outreach programs — cannot repair a relationship rooted in centuries of unequal enforcement.
Reform that ignores history asks communities to forget while they are still living its consequences.
Real reform begins with truth.
Because when a system understands where it came from, it can finally decide what it wants to become.
Julie Bolejack, MBA
TO SUBSCRIBE julies-journal.ghost.io
