A Brief History of People the New York Times Has Called “No Angel”

Screen Shot 2014-08-25 at 11.00.06 AM

Yesterday, the New York Times published a profile of Michael Brown, the unarmed 18-year-old killed by police officer Darren Wilson just over two weeks ago. The article, which ran in tandem with a profile of Wilson, attempts to give a more nuanced picture of a young man whose life was so needlessly, brutally ended. The article does not do this. Rather, it serves no narrative other than that which seeks to find Brown complicit in his own murder. John Eligon, who wrote the piece, pointed to everything from Brown’s interest in rap to the fact that he colored on the wall as a child to demonstrate that he was a young man who had “problems.” 

But perhaps most notable is the fact that Eligon sums up Brown as being “no angel,” a designation that serves to do nothing more than cast a shadow over the character of a young man who was shot six times, whose body was left in the street for hours in the midday sun. Why would Eligon do this? What purpose does it serve other than to ameliorate the murderous actions of a police officer? Well, none. Not really. Oh, it also manages to bolster a racist, classist social structure, through which people like Mike Brown are found guilty of their own murders, and the more powerful members of society can pat themselves on the back for not participating in such demonic behavior as sometimes thinking that their parents just don’t understand them (another “problematic” behavior  of which Eligon accused Brown).

Seeing Brown accused of being “no angel” had me wondering who else the Times has designated with said term, and if all these non-angels were victims like Brown, or had, you know, actually done something to warrant such an offensive, simplistic description. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a quick survey of Times-approved non-angels reveals that the term’s employment is used regardless of the race of the subject, but that it is only used for white people when they are guilty of the most offensive crimes against humanity—even once, literally, a Nazi. Whereas black non-angels includes a celebrated actor and civil rights activist.

Herewith some white non-angels:

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the two teens responsible for the Columbine High School massacre: “Eric’s parents knew their son was no angel — he broke into a van, he was found making pipe bombs and setting them off for fun — and they took steps to address this.

Nazi Wehrmacht Field Marshall Erwin Rommel: “Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, no angel, but an eventual enemy of Hitler whom the Führer allowed to kill himself with a poison capsule.”

Al Capone, gangster: “Al Capone of Garfield Place was no angel.”

Donald Manuel Paradis, gang leader: “Don Paradis was no angel. He was a leader of the Gypsy Jokers motorcycle gang back in 1980 and he allowed any number of nefarious types to have the run of his home in Spokane.

And then two black non-angels, about as different from one another as can be:

Clayton Lockett, murderer and rapist: “To be sure, Lockett was no angel. He was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting a young woman, Stephanie Neiman, and watching as accomplices buried her alive.

Paul Robeson, college valedictorian, actor, cicil rights activist: “Despite all his accomplishments, fame (at times, he was the best-known black man in the world) and courage, Robeson was no angel: He had affairs, while playing Othello, with at least two of his Desdemonas; his integrity could become stubbornness; and he refused to criticize Stalin publicly despite awareness of his crimes.

And, again, perhaps it isn’t surprising that this is how the paper of record describes a crime victim, but it should be. It should be shocking. A lot of people will excuse this by saying that the Times is attempting to be “fair and balanced.” But there was nothing “fair and balanced” about Wilson’s actions that day. Wilson shot Brown for reasons that have nothing to do with objectivity and everything to do with our biased society and the free reign that police have in subjugating an already oppressed community. None of us are angels, but mythical creatures aren’t really the point of the Michael Brown shooting, now, are they? Rather, the point is one that is all too human and about the weaknesses and injustices that permeate our society, which lead to the dissection and dismissal of a young man’s character after he’s been murdered. 

Follow Kristin Iversen on twitter @kmiversen

7 Comment

  • There are no such things as angels; what else does the New York times believe in…. ghosts?

    Considering angels don’t exist, everything is no angel— save maybe some little ceramic figurine or oil painting….

    So saying some is no angel… is a non-statement. Do a search and find out what or who the New York Times considers to be an angel….

  • What a pointless article Kristin.

    The man, not kid, was no angel. He had a troubled past, kept friends who also had troubled pasts, was purposely disobedient to the officer who shot him (even by his friend’s account) and was a robbery suspect at the time.

    Being shot and killed does not change his past. Being shot and killed does not mean that we shouldn’t talk about his troubled past.

    None of that means he should be shot and killed. Even if it turns out to be true that he reached for the officer’s gun and fought with him – the remaining shots after he was down are murder.

    The more facts we get, it sounds like both the officer and the man were guilty of criminal behavior. I hope the officer gets charges brought against him, and I wish Michael had lived to face his own charges.

    • >The man, not kid, was no angel.
      I know it’s hard for white racists to believe, but teenage black people are kids too.

  • Coming up with this idea for a story was genius. Congratulations. People in the media reading it must be kicking themselves for not thinking of it first.

    I’m just surprised Curtis Sliwa wasn’t on the list.

  • You vilify the New York Times for having a bias yet you write an article that ignores all facts an logic clearly because you have your own bias. There is still an ongoing investigation so how do you know that Brown’s killing was not justifiable? You state “Wilson shot Brown for reasons that have nothing to do with objectivity and everything to do with our biased society and the free reign that police have in subjugating an already oppressed community.” If Brown went for the gun would the officer have any right to protect his own life if he legitimately felt it was in danger? Is a person who just robbed a store and assaulted a man in the process more or less likely to react calmly to a police officer’s presence when stopped? I haven’t done the research but I would think there is a chance the articles that referred to the people as “no angel” were written by different people. Are these various people involved in some sort of conspiracy together?

  • Michael Brown was “no angel” because he was in the course of committing armed robbery when he was shot & according to police he had fought with one of them.

  • Your article really makes no sense. It is clear that you look at the whole Brown case with a biased eye accusing the police officer of murderous actions. Clearly you must have extensive law enforcement experience and your life has been put in jeopardy numerous times and you ” hugged it out” with your assailants. The sad thing is that Digg published this on their site and I got to read your yellow journalism ….headlines with no content. Try writing without an agenda, there is enough inflammatory fake journalism out there.