So, I didn't know anything about this incident before the public uproar. I believe that there are cries of racism and a lot of people disparaging Florida? I went to Wikipedia, and I'm uncertain if most of the protesters even understand the situation.
As I understand: - Zimmerman was the head of the neighborhood watch. There has been a lot of crime in the neighborhood. - He carried a gun at the recommendation of local law enforcement, but mostly because of dangerous animals. - Travon Marin was on the phone and wandering around outside for several minutes in the rain. - Martin began running. Zimmerman exited his car and followed. - The girl that Martin was speaking to on the phone said that he uttered some expletives and approached Zimmerman. - At least two eyewitnesses observed Martin beating Zimmerman severely, while Zimmerman was on the ground screaming for help. - Other witnesses saw things differently, but none of them were direct eye witnesses. - The yelling for help was heard on the phone and went on for at least 13 seconds before shots were fired.
An issue causing confusion: - A news story reported that Zimmerman identified the man as black, sparking racism allegations. In truth, Zimmerman didn't identify anyone he reported by race in the seven calls he made over the years to 911. He only identified by race when asked to. The news story was purposefully edited to play the race card, and the reporter in charge was fired.
My conclusions: - The only likely scenario is that Zimmerman approached Martin, an altercation began, Martin gave Zimmerman a severe beating (breaking his nose and lacerating the back of his head in multiple places) while Zimmerman called for help, and then Zimmerman acted in self-defense by firing a single bullet. - Zimmerman may have been too aggressive in approaching Martin, but I don't know that it was outside the law. He was the head of the neighborhood watch and going to school for criminal justice.
I also deduce that one or more of the following is probable: - Martin and Zimmerman had a previous disagreement or altercation. - There were additional environmental factors involved or persons involved that Zimmerman doesn't wish to speak about. - Martin had violence / impulse control issues and didn't believe that he was endangering his life by attacking Zimmerman.
Side-thoughts: - Charges of racism seem unwarranted and seem to stem from the "creatively" edited news report. - Martin probably was the attacker based on witness reports.
Final thoughts: - In the US, you can only be convicted of a crime if the evidence proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you are guilty. Especially with the "Stand Your Ground" law, this seems to be a fairly clean case of self-defense. Any reasonable doubt by some of the witnesses was discounted by eye witnesses who'd actually seen the incident. - Again, I don't think that most of the people causing an uproar understand the case. If they have a problem with it, shouldn't their problem be with self-defense laws in general?
Please don't critique my analysis for a lack of sympathy. I think the event was tragic for everyone involved. But I also think that people have a right to defend themselves.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:I also deduce that one or more of the following is probable:
Martin and Zimmerman had a previous disagreement or altercation
Highly improbable, since Martin was new to the neighborhood, and both major testimonies (Deedee's and Zimmerman's) say that they didn't recognize each other.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To sum up:
1) There had been a little crime in the neighborhood, not a great deal. Zimmerman was the head of the neighborhood watch, a job he'd originally assigned himself two years before (although he was later elected by his neighborhood association) and which he performed somewhat overzealously. He had begun training in mixed martial arts and self-defense at a local gym in order to better perform these duties and to shed some excess pounds.
2) One of his friends, a cop kicked off the force for corruption, had recommended that he carry a gun because of wild dogs.
3) Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend and walking home from a convenience store in the rain.
4) Martin had been smoking pot earlier in the day, but was not significantly high by the time of the incident.
5) Zimmerman had been drinking earlier in the day, but was not drunk by the time of the incident.
6) Zimmerman observed Martin, someone he did not recognize from the neighborhood, and began tailing him in his truck. Martin noticed him almost immediately and, according to his girlfriend, took him for a sexual predator.
7) After Zimmerman followed Martin around a turn, Martin began to actively evade him. Zimmerman called the police, exited his vehicle, and began pursuing him on foot despite being advised gently not to do so; he expressed frustration that the local thieves always got away.
8) After a relatively short distance, Zimmerman stopped and watched Martin, who also stopped running. Zimmerman then says he started to return to his truck when Martin doubled back and confronted him. Martin was within shooting distance of his home at this point, but his girlfriend has speculated that he did not want to let Zimmerman know where he lived.
9) Martin's girlfriend testified that Martin asked Zimmerman to identify himself; Zimmerman refused and demanded that Martin identify himself instead. A fight then broke out. We do not know who struck first, or why.
10) In the ensuing fight, Zimmerman sustained a single blow to his nose, which broke, and fell backwards onto the concrete. Martin then climbed atop Zimmerman.
11) One eyewitness says he saw multiple blows; others say they merely observed Martin on top, pinning Zimmerman. Zimmerman's injuries were minor and generally superficial, so it's impossible to say with any accuracy whether Martin was indeed repeatedly cracking Zimmerman's head onto the concrete very, very ineffectively or simply trying to immobilize Zimmerman.
12) Zimmerman claimed (but did not testify; he did not take the stand) that Martin told him he was going to kill him, and went for his gun. Zimmerman claims that his gun was holstered behind his back, but that he was able to pull it and fire before Martin could get it.
13) Martin was struck at close range while on top of Zimmerman and died almost immediately.
14) Zimmerman claims that he was unaware that Martin died. He rearranged Martin's body a bit once he got out from under him; the degree to which he did is disputed.
15) Zimmerman was treated for his injuries and questioned, but was neither arrested nor charged. He was well-known to the local police for both good and bad reasons, whereas Martin was known to one of the officers who questioned Zimmerman as a recent import and bad apple.
16) Martin was considered a bad apple because they suspected him -- probably quite rightly -- of small-time drug dealing, especially pot and purple drank. He was apparently a good student but had in recent years been mixed up to varying degrees with a bad crowd; he'd been suspended once for spraypainting another student's locker, once for marijuana possession, and once more for unexcused truancy. (There is also a disputed account that says he was found with a screwdriver and women's jewelry when his bag was searched following the spraypaint incident; no actual record exists of this discovery, his parents say they were never informed of it, and Trayvon was never punished for it. Miami-Dade police, however, say they received descriptions of the jewelry but never identified any of it as stolen.)
17) Once it became known that Zimmerman wasn't even going to be held, the Black Twitterverse blew up. Seriously. Lots of people pointed out that an unarmed black kid had died for, as far as anyone knew at the time, walking down the street near someone who didn't recognize him. Gun rights activists rose in Zimmerman's defense, and things got a bit noisier. Obama was finally asked to make a statement, which he did shortly after the state decided to actually arrest Zimmerman and investigate in more detail; his statement polarized the right wing, which had largely ignored the incident up to this point, and they mobilized to defend Zimmerman from what they saw as a bunch of anti-gun race-baiters backed by the power of a white-hating president.
18) Both the prosecution and the defense made a hash of the trial itself, but the prosecution was far, far worse. They were terrible. Witnesses were clearly brought to the stand without any consultation whatsoever, obvious lines of inquiry were abandoned, and the charge sought was generally agreed by all observers to be excessive and, given legal precedent, almost impossible to prove.
19) The Zimmerman defense sought to make its argument by demonstrating that he had every reason to fear Martin; the right-wing press seized on this to, as some on the left felt, put the victim's character on trial. Certainly since Zimmerman was not put on the stand, the major question left to determine was whether Martin seemed sufficiently scary to justify Zimmerman's fear and thus his claim of self-defense; this required that Martin be vilified as much as possible, something that was limited to some degree in court but which the press was more than happy to augment for the rest of us. As Martin could not take the stand in his own defense for obvious reasons, there was no functional counter-narrative; it was left to the jury to decide whether the picture the defense painted of Martin seemed credible. (Things were complicated by all kinds of media fraud and confusion in the early going; people on both sides of the conflict edited recordings, falsely circulated mislabeled photos, etc. To this day, I still see pictures of "Trayvon" as a shirtless thug circulated on Facebook by people who don't realize that the man in question is not actually Trayvon Martin, and who claim -- incorrectly -- that the picture his family released of him was a shot of when he was a fresh-faced twelve-year-old.)
I think it's obvious that the jury found as the law demanded, based on the cases presented to them. But I think if the prosecution had been more competent, more options would have been available to them. And, of course, it's regrettable that this happened at all. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm certainly no lawyer, but that appears to be a really clear and understandable summary, Tom. Thanks for sharing it.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Nice summary, Tom, though you omitted the 13+ seconds of Zimmerman screaming for help. I'd wager calling for help repeatedly and being either continually attacked or pinned down is what clinches the self-defense theory -- regardless of the circumstances leading up to it.
I think that proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" of a murder charge would have been extremely difficult. Manslaughter might have been possible with a competent prosecution.
Regardless, I feel that the protests and attention are unwarranted. It seems to have been a fair jury. I'd like to think that a reasonable citizen would have voted the same as a jury, in most instances.
The public outcry is shamefull. It doesn't seem that race had anything to do with it. All of the grandstanding and soap-boxing is disrespectful to everyone involved in this travesty.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
I agree, Tom. That was a pretty fair summary, in my opinion.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
I would add to 6) that Zimmerman suggested that Martin called the non-emergency number before any possible following of Martin, and that he said he was suspicious not because of Martin's dress or race but because Martin was walking slowly in the rain, off the sidewalk.
I'd add to 16) that information on the stolen property since then has shown that the school had a policy of covering up its students' criminal behavior to keep its reported crime rate low. The jewelry found in Martin's backpack did match a stolen property report, but it wasn't matched up until after the shooting because the school reported it as found, rather than stolen property.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
And I'd add to 19) that while Martin's character was tried in the media, it was not at court; no character evidence regarding Martin was allowed in. The closest the defense got was showing pictures of 17 year old Martin at the time of the shooting rather than the much younger photos shown in the media, which was directly relevant to one witness who said she believed Zimmerman was on top only because she saw that an adult sized person was on top, and she thought that was Zimmerman because Martin looked like a kid.
The defense was allowed to offer Martin's THC levels at death, but never did; the defense was not allowed to offer texts about Martin's previous fights, even though the prosecution made a big deal about Zimmerman's (weak) MMA training indicating that he started the fight.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:information on the stolen property since then has shown that the school had a policy of covering up its students' criminal behavior to keep its reported crime rate low
This has been claimed, but mainly by not-very-credible people. I tried to leave off as much hearsay as possible.
It's worth noting that Zimmerman had an actual arrest history that wasn't brought up, either.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:'m certainly no lawyer, but that appears to be a really clear and understandable summary, Tom
It has rather a lot of omissions (most prominently the shouts for help), and it's false in lots of the details, which annoys me. Here's a list of the errors I detected at first glance. (if I'm wrong in any of these, please forgive me, but I don't think I am)
1) Zimmerman didn't assign himself the job. 2) It wasn't a friend of his that advised him to get a gun, it was the County Animal Services themselves. 3) It wasn't Martin's girlfriend, just a female friend, it seems. 6) According to Martin's friend, *she* thought it might be a sexual predator, *he* thought it was 'a creepy-ass cracka', which seems to mean either white guy or "police". 9) Martin's friend didn't testify that Martin asked Zimmerman to identify himself, she testified that Martin asked "Why are you following me?" 13) Martin didn't "die almost immediately", there was testimony that he could have lived anywhere between 1-10 minutes
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:information on the stolen property since then has shown that the school had a policy of covering up its students' criminal behavior to keep its reported crime rate low
This has been claimed, but mainly by not-very-credible people. I tried to leave off as much hearsay as possible.
It's worth noting that Zimmerman had an actual arrest history that wasn't brought up, either.
Ideally I'd link to a reputable news source with a primary document, but the so-called reputable news sources don't seem to do that any more.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I don't know if this perspective is valuable or not, but I've spent a lot of time in Sanford. My great-grandfather, grandfather, and now aunt and cousins live in the area (could go back further and I'm just not aware of it), so not just passing through and eating at the fantastic German restaurant they have in the downtown area. From my own impression and the impression of most Sanfordites I know and have talked to, there's not too much doubt that race was involved. The city has been and continues to be quite a racially charged place. It's entirely possible that George Zimmerman is not racist, but I find that to be a lot harder to believe, knowing the area, than that he was at least in part motivated by racism. (And I should note, the fact that he "self-identified as Puerto-Rican" or whatever the case was only reinforces this - most of the violence in the town that I'm personally aware of has been between the Hispanic population, specifically Puerto-Rican, and the African-American population. Not exclusively, but not being "white" doesn't mean much).
I'm not saying he should be found guilty of murder or anything, but just because racism is quite hard to prove in court doesn't mean that its not there. For me at least, that's what's frustrating about the verdict. I think it was right, by the law (and facts, as have been discussed), but it kinda sucks that the law found itself unable to address the endemic racism that is painfully obvious in the city of Sanford.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: I don't know if this perspective is valuable or not, but I've spent a lot of time in Sanford. My great-grandfather, grandfather, and now aunt and cousins live in the area (could go back further and I'm just not aware of it), so not just passing through and eating at the fantastic German restaurant they have in the downtown area. From my own impression and the impression of most Sanfordites I know and have talked to, there's not too much doubt that race was involved. The city has been and continues to be quite a racially charged place. It's entirely possible that George Zimmerman is not racist, but I find that to be a lot harder to believe, knowing the area, than that he was at least in part motivated by racism. (And I should note, the fact that he "self-identified as Puerto-Rican" or whatever the case was only reinforces this - most of the violence in the town that I'm personally aware of has been between the Hispanic population, specifically Puerto-Rican, and the African-American population. Not exclusively, but not being "white" doesn't mean much).
There is a term for making assumptions about a person's attitude based on his race or residency. I believe it's called prejudice--and as to race, racism. At least, that's how I read your post. You know nothing about Zimmerman other than that he lives in Sanford and identifies as Hispanic (and you got the ethnic background wrong too--his family is Peruvian, not Puerto Rican).
Zimmerman tutored black kids, once had a black girlfriend, and that criminal record Tom noted above? One arrest was for interfering with police who he believed were mistreating a homeless black man. But he's Hispanic and from Sanford, so he's probably racist?
I also have a bone to pick with your second paragraph:
quote:I'm not saying he should be found guilty of murder or anything, but just because racism is quite hard to prove in court doesn't mean that its not there. For me at least, that's what's frustrating about the verdict. I think it was right, by the law (and facts, as have been discussed), but it kinda sucks that the law found itself unable to address the endemic racism that is painfully obvious in the city of Sanford.
Why would you, or anyone, think that the purpose of a criminal trial is to "address endemic racism?" Even the big Supreme Court cases in Anglo-American law aren't about big social purposes, they're about adjudicating individual cases. As the Court frequently admonishes in its standing opinions, they decide cases and controversies, not issues. A criminal trial even more is not about society, it's about whether the state has sufficient evidence to prove the individual defendant guilty of a crime. It's not a forum to wax rhapsodical about the evils of racism; that's a discussion for debate halls and Internet fora. My current case isn't about society's or Vermony's policies towards former employees, it's about whether my client breached by his particular employment agreement. The trial in State of Florida v. George Zimmerman had one purpose: to determine if George Zimmerman was guilty of murder or manslaughter. That's it.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
It was shown that Rachel Jeantel, Martin's female acquaintance (sometimes mistakenly referred to as his girlfriend), lied under oath before the trial began and at times gave conflicting and unclear testimony during the trial.
The gated community in which Zimmerman lived had reported 8 burglaries in 14 months. Several of these burglaries, according to residents, were perpetrated by young black men. In at least one instance, this information was proven to be correct. A black minor and another black male were arrested in connection to the burglary (technically a home invasion) of the home of Olivia Bertalan, who testified during Zimmerman's trail.
Zimmerman did not invoke Stand Your Ground. His case was presented as a standard claim of self-defense. There's no indication Zimmerman had a significant understanding of the SYG law or that it influenced his decisions the evening of the shooting.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I know as a young man that the first thing I would think if I saw an older man trailing me would be male on male rapist.
Yeah, not really. The girl was obviously cracking a joke, and Martin treated it as such.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Edgehopper:
Yeah... I suppose this is why I don't post on these boards anymore. I don't really have the energy to form a cogent response. Suffice it to say, I'm fine if deep down, Zimmerman is not a racist. It wouldn't surprise me. But I think it is more than a little naive to think that race didn't play a part in the events. Live in Sanford for 6 months, teach at their schools, go to their churches (as I have done for a good portion of my life), and you might find it easier to believe that race was a motivator. Again, it might not be. We don't and can't know. But assuming that Zimmerman was not motivated in some way by race seems more of a stretch than to assume that he was.
And like I said, I think the court got it right. Good for the courts, good for the lawyers, good for the justice system. They did their job. They ignored the issue of race and racism. Yay. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean the issues go away or don't exist, and in fact might serve to perpetuate the idea that the justice system is biased. Again, I'm not saying that the system is biased at all, or that the trial could have or should have gone any other way. But nor can I be intellectually honest with myself and not see a real problem with racism (in the towns in Florida I've lived in, Sanford included. I can't speak for everywhere), and be frustrated by the fact that the issues are relegated to "debate halls and Internet fora." My frustration is not that the justice system failed. It didn't. My frustration is that I want some hard and fast way to address these painful issues and the justice system doesn't give me that. No fault of the system there... but no comfort for me.
I'm not really interested in debating any further. I don't necessarily disagree with you calling me out. I very well may fall in to the trap of prejudice based on my personal experiences in the town of Sanford. Zimmerman could be an exception to the general trend I've noticed and experienced. But it doesn't change the trend. And I agree, the trial was exactly what it should be. But that doesn't help me not be frustrated at the mess I'll be going to when I visit my family in a couple of weeks, nor does it make me not wish that there was somewhere more productive other than the oh-so-effective path of discussion on Hatrack to vent my frustration.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: I know as a young man that the first thing I would think if I saw an older man trailing me would be male on male rapist.
Yeah, not really. The girl was obviously cracking a joke, and Martin treated it as such.
Zimmerman looks older than he actually is, and frankly, if we're doing any sort of stereotyping or profiling at all...if I'm a teenage boy and a middle-aged looking white-ish looking guy is following me in a car, that's roughly what I'm going to worry about.
But if I'm a black teenager? In the South? Being trailed by a white-looking guy?
It could be any of a dozen different kind of troubles, but it's almost certainly trouble.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: I know as a young man that the first thing I would think if I saw an older man trailing me would be male on male rapist.
Yeah, not really. The girl was obviously cracking a joke, and Martin treated it as such.
Zimmerman looks older than he actually is, and frankly, if we're doing any sort of stereotyping or profiling at all...if I'm a teenage boy and a middle-aged looking white-ish looking guy is following me in a car, that's roughly what I'm going to worry about.
But if I'm a black teenager? In the South? Being trailed by a white-looking guy?
It could be any of a dozen different kind of troubles, but it's almost certainly trouble.
No, but racism is over, remember. And anyway Zimmerman was (to most people's sensibilities) Hispanic, and that means racism *couldn't* be a factor...
Unless we're talking about how unfair it is, all this outcry, then race becomes a factor again.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah.
The whole "but Zimmerman is Hispanic!" thing is really interesting to me, because everyone who says it as an excuse for it not being racism sort of outs themselves as ignorant on racial issues. No black-brown friction in America? Hah. Everyone who isn't white is exactly the same? Hah. Only white people can be racist? Hah.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not even sure, with the people I've spoken to who raise that point, what the basis is. Is it an idea, specifically considered or not, that racism doesn't really happen intra-minorities? Or is it a notion of (very human) apathy that it's known racism happens between minorities, but it's a remote problem to the lives of most people?
Who can say if it's either or none? But speaking for myself, I'm immediately prone to skepticism when someone disavows even the *possibility* of a stronger-than-usual initial response of anxiety or suspicion when faced with a strange young black man versus, say, an equally young white man-or Hispanic or Asian for that matter. It's just...for those that do, why should I be inclined to take their word for it that they're the rare specimen of human being who has completely rooted out even the small glimmers of prejudice and racism we get transferred to us by our broader culture, our broader media?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I'm in no way saying that Martin had zero cause for concern. What I am saying is that it's a little ridiculous to imply that Martin was actually concerned that he was being trailed by someone who wanted to rape him.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:And anyway Zimmerman was (to most people's sensibilities) Hispanic, and that means racism *couldn't* be a factor.
I've never heard a person say that. I've heard them say things like "Zimmerman was part-black himself (had a black great-grandfather), and he tutored black kids, and he once had a black girlfriend, and he protested against the police mistreating a homeless black man"
You should try to steelman other people's arguments, not strawman them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:And anyway Zimmerman was (to most people's sensibilities) Hispanic, and that means racism *couldn't* be a factor.
I've never heard a person say that. I've heard them say things like "Zimmerman was part-black himself (had a black great-grandfather), and he tutored black kids, and he once had a black girlfriend, and he protested against the police mistreating a homeless black man"
You should try to steelman other people's arguments, not strawman them.
So because you've never heard it (not unlike people having utterly eradicated prejudice from their initial responses, because your not having heard it has zero chance of being a factor of selection) that means it doesn't get said, and that I'm putting words in people's mouths.
Anyway, suffice to say I've heard the following as nearly a direct quote from two separate people: "Why are you talking about racism? Zimmerman's Hispanic." On numerous other less blunt occasions I've heard similar remarks alluding to a similar theme.
You're right. I'm probably just making that up, out of (not race baiting) 'tribal politics', right? Steelmanning? Please.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What I am saying is that it's a little ridiculous to imply that Martin was actually concerned that he was being trailed by someone who wanted to rape him. Why? No idea if he was or not, of course. Just curious why, in your mind, there's no way he'd worry about this?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I could be wrong, I suppose. But I've yet to meet a male, teenage or otherwise, who would react to a strange man trailing them by thinking "Oh no, he wants to rape me." Fear of possible regular violence, yes, but "Oh no there's a strange man does he want to rape me," is chiefly a female line of thought.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:So because you've never heard it (not unlike people having utterly eradicated prejudice from their initial responses, because your not having heard it has zero chance of being a factor of selection) that means it doesn't get said, and that I'm putting words in people's mouths.
No, Rakeesh, once again I'm beyond your comprehension. ;-)
If I had meant "It doesn't get said", I'd have said "It doesn't get said". I did not say that.
I'm sure that everything, no matter how stupid, gets said *somewhere* in the universe, it just is a strawman if you are implying it relates to the discussion that is taking place here.
Unless you can find something who said something like that in *this* discussion board?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I can find someone who said that on Ornery, in a thread in which you participated.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
So we can use arguments that other people have said to refute Rakeesh? Cool.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Specifically, I'm just pointing out that something Aris says he's never heard has in fact been "said" in a thread he posted in. He may not have read that post, of course.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
People will always be prejudiced. If not about race then income, style of dress, choice of music. It's people being people.
Using race as an excuse is a scapegoat. Regardless of color, some looney dressed in a ragged hoodie, pacing on the grass in the rain, could be construed as suspicious.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A couple quibbles: Martin wasn't pacing, and his hoodie was not ragged.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:He may not have read that post, of course.
Or forgotten it if I did indeed read it. Or of course that we have a different interpretation of whatever it is that was said. Can't be sure unless you be more specific.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: People will always be prejudiced. If not about race then income, style of dress, choice of music. It's people being people.
Using race as an excuse is a scapegoat. Regardless of color, some looney dressed in a ragged hoodie, pacing on the grass in the rain, could be construed as suspicious.
Ignoring race is willfully ignorant, or downright dishonest.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: People will always be prejudiced. If not about race then income, style of dress, choice of music.
It would be almost as offensive and stupid if Zimmerman did suspect criminal activity based off of many of those things. If he profiled him off as race, then there is some difference, in that he's judging someone based off of something that Martin did not choose, cannot change, and cannot hide.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: People will always be prejudiced. If not about race then income, style of dress, choice of music. It's people being people.
Using race as an excuse is a scapegoat. Regardless of color, some looney dressed in a ragged hoodie, pacing on the grass in the rain, could be construed as suspicious.
Ignoring race is willfully ignorant, or downright dishonest.
Overstating the significance of race - to the obfuscation of other significant factors - is downright dishonest as well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, suffice to say I've heard the following as nearly a direct quote from two separate people: "Why are you talking about racism? Zimmerman's Hispanic." On numerous other less blunt occasions I've heard similar remarks alluding to a similar theme.
Interesting factoid (as in not a correction), as I understand it, Hispanic is not a race, they're actually independent categories at least in the US census.
Wingracer, I think you misunderstood Lyrhawn (and Lyrhawn, please tell me if I'm wrong).
In America, as law and law enforcement are practiced today, you are being willfully ignorant if you state that everyone has completely equal treatment no matter their race.
He's not saying that the is inherently a difference between people of different races. If he did, that would be racist.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: People will always be prejudiced. If not about race then income, style of dress, choice of music. It's people being people.
Using race as an excuse is a scapegoat. Regardless of color, some looney dressed in a ragged hoodie, pacing on the grass in the rain, could be construed as suspicious.
Ignoring race is willfully ignorant, or downright dishonest.
Overstating the significance of race - to the obfuscation of other significant factors - is downright dishonest as well.
To make that argument, I think you have to understand the role that race plays in our society, and then explain how you think it doesn't apply. Race in America is like water on pavement - it finds every crack and crevice, and often widens them. Not everything is about race, but so much is that it's reasonable to assume it plays some sort of a role in a situation like this. That's why the "But Zimmerman is Hispanic" crowd is so loud.
Just because people are sick of hearing about race doesn't mean the problem is solved.
Your willingness, even drive, to excuse race as a reason is suspicious to me, either of a willful desire to ignore a problem, or of a lack of understanding of the problem.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, suffice to say I've heard the following as nearly a direct quote from two separate people: "Why are you talking about racism? Zimmerman's Hispanic." On numerous other less blunt occasions I've heard similar remarks alluding to a similar theme.
Interesting factoid (as in not a correction), as I understand it, Hispanic is not a race, they're actually independent categories at least in the US census.
One could be Hispanic AND white, Hispanic and black, or even Hispanic and Chinese for that matter.
Good luck with that. The difference between how the government defines race and how society defines race is the subject of thousands of pages of study over centuries of American history.
Suffice to say, Americans by and large don't consider Hispanics to be white.
Take a look at the controversy over allowing Marc Anthony to sing "God Bless America" at the All-Star Game.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Re: "but Zimmerman is Hispanic!" ...
There are at least as many people saying that this case is an example of, not just racism, but specifically white-on-black racism. Pointing out Zimmerman's ethnicity seems a reasonable rebuttal to those sorts of specific claims.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It doesn't shift the conversation away from race though, it just specifies which racial conversation we're having.
Maybe that will make white people feel better about not being the bad guy this time, but it doesn't make it any less of a racial issue.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It's more that lots of people are, in fact, stating that white people are the bad guy this time.
It's not that they're like "He's Hispanic, so we're not the bad guy, yay!"
It's more that people are saying "white people are the bad guys," and then they say "but... He's Hispanic!"
Perhaps the other thing is happening too. But I've seen a lot of the stuff I explain above.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Lyrhawn said: "Suffice to say, Americans by and large don't consider Hispanics to be white. "
A co-worker of mine whose family is from Nicaragua asked me about the Zimmerman case the other day. She (surprisingly) didn't know anything about it. I told her that Zimmerman was Hispanic but the news media called him white sometimes. I brought up a picture of him on my computer screen.
"He's definitely Hispanic!" she said. "How could anyone call him white?"
So a self-identified Latina doesn't consider him white. There's my anecdote.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As noted, so many "white" and "black" people identify as Hispanic -- and vice versa -- that the federal government actually changed its method of ethnicity reporting specifically to accommodate people of any skin color who also wanted to call themselves Hispanic. So you can register in the census as a black Hispanic, a white Hispanic, even a Pacific Islander or Asian Hispanic. It's officially not a "race" anymore; it's basically a cultural signifier.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It's more that lots of people are, in fact, stating that white people are the bad guy this time.
It's not that they're like "He's Hispanic, so we're not the bad guy, yay!"
It's more that people are saying "white people are the bad guys," and then they say "but... He's Hispanic!"
Perhaps the other thing is happening too. But I've seen a lot of the stuff I explain above.
If that's all they care about, then they're really missing the point.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sure...but that is a HUGE if that might have nothing to do with what Dan is saying.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
zimmerman self-identifies as white and is pretty white passing. he is also hispanic. i guess people are confused about this.
also he's racist, turns out there were some myspace posts by him from some time ago, said some racist things and bragged about escaping conviction or arrest about some shit.
but it's hardly news that he's an idiot.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: zimmerman self-identifies as white and is pretty white passing. he is also hispanic. i guess people are confused about this.
Zimmerman self-identifies as Hispanic and is nowhere near passing as white.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Re: "but Zimmerman is Hispanic!" ...
There are at least as many people saying that this case is an example of, not just racism, but specifically white-on-black racism. Pointing out Zimmerman's ethnicity seems a reasonable rebuttal to those sorts of specific claims.
If it's done in response to such a thing, it's both fair and relevant. It's often not. I can't speak (and nor, I might add, can anyone) to whether that's a lot overall, but it's hardly a rare thing for people to realize Zimmerman was a Hispanic and then stop thinking about how it might be a racism question, or whether it is a question that they might need to think about.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It's more that lots of people are, in fact, stating that white people are the bad guy this time.
It's not that they're like "He's Hispanic, so we're not the bad guy, yay!"
It's more that people are saying "white people are the bad guys," and then they say "but... He's Hispanic!"
Perhaps the other thing is happening too. But I've seen a lot of the stuff I explain above.
If you take it a step further you might notice some extra perspective. The people who are complaining that this is a situation that involved racism aren't looking at it from a perspective of 'what's the white man done to us lately' but rather 'another young black man without a weapon shot and killed by someone'. Now we can pretend all we like that this isn't something it's quite reasonable for people-particularly people actually *in* the bloody community-to be exhausted with, exasperated with.
To the people in the community, they already know that white people aren't the only ones who are suspicious of and fearful of young black men on that basis alone. Frankly it seems likely to me that this was the case with Zimmerman, as even on the phone his reasons for deeming Martin suspicious are pretty vague. So from this perspective, the important thing is that another black kid was killed under circumstances that are shall we say uncertain. They mention that we should consider a racial component to this.
This is when, it seems to me, many people (understandably) look at it from their perspective and reply or at least point out that Zimmerman wasn't actually white, so why is this something I need to consider?
It's all murky and none of us have a handle on how much in what proportions our takes on these wider conversations really happen, but the least we can do is refrain from projecting our own anecdotal experiences onto the entirety of the discussion. As has been shown in this discussion recently, people have a way of remembering examples favorable to them and forgetting or at least not mentioning others. For example on many occasions I responded that no, in fact, I wasn't willing to say 'Zimmerman is a racist'-that as far as I, personally, was willing to go was to point out a lot of let's just call them warning factors.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Next time I'm at my puter I'll look up the stats...but I suspect that there is at least some reasonablness to being more suspicious of young black men.
Is it racist to treat a statistically higher threat as such?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Is it racist to treat a statistically higher threat as such?
Again it depends on how one defines racism. Everyone means a different thing with it.
If you view racism as a memeplex of beliefs and behaviors, it's certainly part of the racism memeplex to "be more suspicious of young black men" (regardless of whether the holder of the meme considers it reasonable or not).
If you define racism as any behavior that contributes to racial oppression, it's probably still "racist" yes -- it means young black men will be treated with greater suspicion, which means they'll be having fewer opportunities in life, etc.
If you define racism as racial-power-and-privilege, then to discuss racial relations at all (when you are not at the bottom of the racial oppression pole) leads inevitably to a display of your privilege and thus racist. (By that definition, I'm behaving as a racist right now by writing these words)
If you define racism as a *wrong* epistemically belief about races, then it's probably not racist, because it is indeed statistically accurate, as you say, that the black population in America contributes to crime to a higher degree than the white population.
If the immediately previous definition is qualified so that your belief will have to do about the genetics of races, then I suppose it would depend on whether you believe that greater criminal rates in different populations stems from genetics or from external factors (culture, economics, etc)
So it all depends on what one means by "racism".
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Here's a disgusting fact: while the Zimmerman trial was going on, 61 people were murdered in Chicago. Almost all of them were black, seven of them were children as young or younger than Martin. One month, one city: 61 murders.
Yet national outrage, media coverage, and presidential comments are all strangely absent. Why is that?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Yet national outrage, media coverage, and presidential comments are all strangely absent. Why is that?
I think I've mentioned this before but I think it was in Ornery, rather than Hatrack: That's how I see structural racism work in a society who's ideology is *nominally* anti-racist.
High-profile white-on-black crime cases (like the Zimmerman-Martin case was initially presented, and before that the Duke Lacrosse case) are useful for people who want to loudly denounce the racism of society, and give themselves props for fighting against racism, WITHOUT actually doing much of anything to improve the lives of the actually underprivileged en masse.
In the meantime, invisibly in the background, thousands of young black people lose their lives to violent crime; a focus on reducing black-on-black crime would help save many more black people's lives and improve the black population's overall quality of life too -- but to attack black-on-black crime isn't politically useful in the sense of bashing other people's racism or calling oneself anti-racist.
So with Democrats caring more about appearing anti-racist than helping black people, and with Republicans barely even pretending to care about black people at all, USA is at the situation as it is: A loud anti-racist ideology (understandably so, after so many major conflicts USA was involved in had something to do with racist enemies -- the Civil War, World War II, the Civil Rights movement, etc), but very little interest in actually improving the lives of black people in general.
This isn't surprising. The countries and political parties with a nominally Christian official religion are the ones you'll see care more about appearing Christian that behaving in a Christian fashion. After all they have "Christian" officially in their constitutions/programs, so that gets them the Christian votes automatically, why bother with *being* Christian?
China is nominally Communist and yet behaves as the most extreme colonialist capitalist of our times.
In a similar manner America (and even more so it's progressive portion) is nominally anti-racist and makes loud anti-racism noises, and yet racial injustice thrives invisibly at its core. Not just despite said loud anti-racism, but indirectly supported by loud anti-racism. If Americans cared less about whether they *appear* racist or anti-racist, they might actually start caring about improving the lives of black people, just out of sheer human decency rather than because of anti-racism.
(And yes, I'm lecturing Americans on how American racism works, all the way from the other side of the world, without ever having been to America at at all).
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Yet national outrage, media coverage, and presidential comments are all strangely absent. Why is that?
Partly because, unlike the Zimmerman case, there was little controversial or atypical about it. Which is sad, but let's face it: people will do their best to prosecute those deaths, and no one is saying that the killer should get away scot-free.
quote: (And yes, I'm lecturing Americans on how American racism works, all the way from the other side of the world, without ever having been to America at at all).
Hey, you're only slightly less well-informed about American racism than Blayne is about American health care.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
White people lecturing America about Black-on-black crime usually comes across as either insulting or amusing to the black community.
This is often because the white person in question fails to recognize the role whites played in creating the situation. When whites stand back and say "wow, you guys are really killing each other a lot, maybe you should solve that and leave us alone," it implicitly suggests that they had nothing to do with it, when in reality the construction of the black inner city is very, very much a WHITE construction. Whites, through decades of policy and social engineering, put black people there and didn't let them out, then they abandoned the inner city to its fate.
That's why the phrase:
quote:If you define racism as a *wrong* epistemically belief about races, then it's probably not racist, because it is indeed statistically accurate, as you say, that the black population in America contributes to crime to a higher degree than the white population.
is so problematic. Because the white population built this problem, and now they're pretending its the fault of black people.
Furthermore, this case simply has too much historical weight behind it. America's history of whites killing young black men and getting off without any punishment is just too long, especially in the South. It cannot be viewed independently of that history. I guarantee you, the divergent views on this from a white or black perspective break right along the historical lens they view it between. Black people, old and young, grow up with that history in their faces, and it's part of their lives and personal histories (to say nothing of a life of being stopped by white police officers for the crime of being white). White people simply don't understand that. And without an explanation like the one Obama gave the other day, they never will, because they'll never experience it first hand.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
I'm white as milk and neither me nor any of my ancestors going back as many centuries as you'd like to had anything to do with the white construct you're describing.
I think it's immoral *not* to say "wow, you guys are really killing each other a lot, maybe you should solve that..." (not sure what the "and leave us alone" is about, given its a black-black murder epidemic we're discussing).
Or should whites just stand back and say "damn, almost 2 murders every day in Chicago - that sucks. Too bad it's rooted in the legacy of our forefather's racism and we really don't have any right to draw attention to it in 2013 - best of luck!"?
Anyway, whites aren't where I'd expect to see more attention brought to the problem. And I certainly won't hold my breath waiting for Jackson or Sharpton, or Obama for that matter, to start organizing demonstrations night and day until we have calls for a national discussion on black-black violence. Much cleaner to pick and choose the odd white-black injustice every year or two and ignore the daily shooting deaths under our noses.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ignore shooting deaths? Didn't we (or you, Americans, whatever) just do the whole gun control debate?
quote: A visibly infuriated President Barack Obama surrounded himself with tear-stained parents of Connecticut school shooting victims Wednesday and declared it a "pretty shameful day for Washington" after the Senate rejected a measure designed to make it tougher for criminals to get their hands on guns.
quote:I'm white as milk and neither me nor any of my ancestors going back as many centuries as you'd like to had anything to do with the white construct you're describing.
Really? So you're a recent immigrant who just got here? Even if that were the case, you'd still benefit from the system that was created by whites over the last couple centuries, especially the last couple decades. And for younger Americans, even if they didn't create it, they benefit from it, and we're all part of the same country, so we bear responsibility for the actions of our government and our ancestors, which means we have to fix it.
quote:I think it's immoral *not* to say "wow, you guys are really killing each other a lot, maybe you should solve that..." (not sure what the "and leave us alone" is about, given its a black-black murder epidemic we're discussing).
Because your suggestion is that it's a black-created problem. They created the situation, they suffer the consequences, so they should fix it. That's awfully tidy for white America, but it's ridiculous. It's not. It's a problem whites played a huge role in creating, but have no particular interest in solving other than to wag their fingers at the inner city and say "why can't you all just behave?" It's insulting.
quote:Or should whites just stand back and say "damn, almost 2 murders every day in Chicago - that sucks. Too bad it's rooted in the legacy of our forefather's racism and we really don't have any right to draw attention to it in 2013 - best of luck!"?
You missed the point. We absolutely shouldn't "stand back" and say "best of luck." We should be devoting resources, time and effort to solving it WITH them, rather than sitting back in our often delightful white, safe, middle-class enclaves judging them and throwing up our hands and saying it's impossible. You certainly didn't hear me suggest we say and do nothing, you did hear me say we should do something and stop backseat driving.
And they've been trying on the issue of violent crime. Many cities have tried to pass handgun laws and other measures to reduce the level of violence, and in some cases it has worked. But then largely white groups come out of the woodworks to get those bans overturned. The result? They get to feel better about themselves, and more black people die. Of course they don't give a damn about the value of gun control, they aren't the ones being gunned down in the hood. There's your modern white-black divide.
quote:Anyway, whites aren't where I'd expect to see more attention brought to the problem. And I certainly won't hold my breath waiting for Jackson or Sharpton, or Obama for that matter, to start organizing demonstrations night and day until we have calls for a national discussion on black-black violence. Much cleaner to pick and choose the odd white-black injustice every year or two and ignore the daily shooting deaths under our noses.
It's not a problem they can solve themselves. And frankly, it's not a problem they should have to solve themselves. The US government and society at large owes more to Black America than a lecture.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
ScottF,
quote:I'm white as milk and neither me nor any of my ancestors going back as many centuries as you'd like to had anything to do with the white construct you're describing.
Setting aside your statements for your own person for the moment, how can you possibly speak with such authority about what your ancestors did when the history of nearly universal virulent racism and the legacy (and in the past) actual practice of slavery? Are your ancestors exclusively made up of Underground Railroad figures or abolitionists? If the answer is no, of course they had something to do with the system Lyrhawn spoke of.
Did they purchase cotton or other goods made in the South? Do business with businesses that did so? Did they join their communities in making the notion of integration not just impossible but not even considered? Did they ever even see a black person, or strive to see slavery ended? Did they ever work a job where they benefited from no black person, however qualified and hard working, would ever even be a consideration?
The list goes on to the extent we could talk about all of the ways everyone benefited from such a system-except its victims, of course, and in fact some victims found what small victories they could on the margins-and not be even half done. It's simply impossible to have a nationwide system of oppression of an entire group of people numbering in the millions and then look to anyone and say 'we had absolutely no part in it'. The only way you would have a leg to stand upon with such a claim would be if you were to say that your ancestors took absolutely no part in anything good wider than themselves, either.
quote: I think it's immoral *not* to say "wow, you guys are really killing each other a lot, maybe you should solve that..." (not sure what the "and leave us alone" is about, given its a black-black murder epidemic we're discussing).
It's patronizing, it's ignorant, and as for the 'leave us alone' part that is for example when the body on the pavement gets a headline and attention from the police, but much less before and certainly much less in, say, school districts years before the murder takes place.
It's also absurd because do you imagine there is a single black person that doesn't already know it?
quote: Or should whites just stand back and say "damn, almost 2 murders every day in Chicago - that sucks. Too bad it's rooted in the legacy of our forefather's racism and we really don't have any right to draw attention to it in 2013 - best of luck!"?
Which is nothing like what Lyrhawn actually said, I'm not sure if you can tell.
quote: Anyway, whites aren't where I'd expect to see more attention brought to the problem. And I certainly won't hold my breath waiting for Jackson or Sharpton, or Obama for that matter, to start organizing demonstrations night and day until we have calls for a national discussion on black-black violence. Much cleaner to pick and choose the odd white-black injustice every year or two and ignore the daily shooting deaths under our nosesx
First, having read this post I very much doubt you have more than a passing familiarity with the kinds of activism people such as Jackson and Sharpton actually engage in. In fact I would be mildly surprised if you could tell me where both are from without looking it up.
Second, it's interesting how you say 'odd white-black injustice'-is that because you imagine these events are relatively rare, or because you're suggesting they're only rarely picked out?
Third, you're an American who proudly denied having anything to do in your own person or your legacy with this racist system we're referring to. You're far from the only white American who thinks that way. Given that, I'm sure an Obama who talks loudly and often about having a national dialogue on race relations would be just delightful.
Racism: nothing to do with us! Right?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The macro problem the whole country should deal with is poverty...and it should deal with it without any consideration of "race".
That Detroit is Mad Max crazy town is not something that should be thrown at the "whites" as if we have real culpability that a young man pulls the trigger of an illegaly purchased and used firearm and murders another young man.
If you feel it is -your- fault someone shoots someone else, fine. You can take up the burden of this weary world on your shoulders, but for Budduh's sake, leave me the heck out of it. I, for one, have -never- murdered anyone nor directlt contributed to murder either.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That Detroit is Mad Max crazy town is not something that should be thrown at the "whites" as if we have real culpability that a young man pulls the trigger of an illegaly purchased and used firearm and murders another young man.
Just as an example, whatever your position on gun control and education, if we as a nation make it easy (light and infrequent punishment and outlawing) to get an illegal gun, and if we as a country toss kids into failure factory schools by the tens of thousands in the wealthiest civilization in human history...
Well. If we get to disavow ourselves of that, we none of us get to lay collective claim to the good things our society does.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Rakeesh -
A small quibble. So far as I know, my ancestors consisted of entirely poor Welsh and Irish peasants, with a smidge or two of Jewish and black Spanish Moor blood. I'm also a first generation immigrant. Some people really don't have slavers in their ancestry.
That doesn't mean that I don't benefit from living in a white dominant society, but my ancestors and I are not culpable for slavery.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As I said, we should all do something to remove poverty from our planet. But that hardly equates to "whites are at fault for black on black violence."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: As I said, we should all do something to remove poverty from our planet. But that hardly equates to "whites are at fault for black on black violence."
Well if you insist on rebutting a radical oversimplification of what was said...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I agree, it's silly.
Lyr: "It's a problem whites played a huge role in creating..."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: As I said, we should all do something to remove poverty from our planet. But that hardly equates to "whites are at fault for black on black violence."
How do you think black poverty came about?
I think you're right that solving poverty would solve a lot of problems. It's basically what I have been advocating. But do you really not see the connection between white actions and black poverty? And dont you see how separating them makes it impossible to fix it? Too many people say its not their fault or problem and wash their hands of it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Rakeesh -
A small quibble. So far as I know, my ancestors consisted of entirely poor Welsh and Irish peasants, with a smidge or two of Jewish and black Spanish Moor blood. I'm also a first generation immigrant. Some people really don't have slavers in their ancestry.
That doesn't mean that I don't benefit from living in a white dominant society, but my ancestors and I are not culpable for slavery.
Two things.
1. Slavery is only one issue. I would argue its not even the most important one. Keeping blacks in pseudo slavery during the Gilded Age hurt more. But the worst was post WW2 racist policies by white governments that made it impossible for most blacks to develop any wealth. They were trapped in the inner city with declining property values and a disappearing tax base. The jobs fled with the whites. What happened in rye 40s, 50s, 60s and what resumed when Reagan dismantled the Great Society is where the heaviest damage was done. This is a crime committed by the Greatest Generation, not Lincolns.
2. You live in America. Presumably are American. You are responsible for the crimes of your government.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Rakeesh -
A small quibble. So far as I know, my ancestors consisted of entirely poor Welsh and Irish peasants, with a smidge or two of Jewish and black Spanish Moor blood. I'm also a first generation immigrant. Some people really don't have slavers in their ancestry.
That doesn't mean that I don't benefit from living in a white dominant society, but my ancestors and I are not culpable for slavery.
This is the kind of thing Lyrhawn (I suspect) and I are getting at: 'whites have culpability for current and past racism, and its consequences' doesn't equal 'every single white person and all of their answers are culpable for slavery'. The problem doesn't start and stop at slavery, for pity's sake.
----------
Stone Wolf,
I don't follow. Are you saying the responses are silly, or the (supposed) challenge of 'whites have culpability for current minority problems in the US'?
It's not as simple as one single, easily defined group being at fault. It's frustrating how quickly so many people are to attempt to reduce such a complex set of human issues to 'one person is at fault'. Lyrhawn and I certainly aren't.
Now, to get back to what was said: are you suggesting whites have no culpability for current intra-minority violence?
-----------
quote:2. You live in America. Presumably are American. You are responsible for the crimes of your government.
Or he is an American, but isn't responsible for the crimes of our government. In which case he gets no credit for anything good it's done either, past or present, but it comes as no surprise people are a lot quicker to pick up a shiny piece of historical pride than they are to admit to a spotted piece of historical blame.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't have a problem with someone saying that Americans share an inherited responcability to help alieviate inner city poverty.
I have serious problems with "whites are responsible for black violence."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Singularly responsible? No, of course not. A hugely major contributor? Yes, of course.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
We disagree.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure if that's the right word. I think you're just plain wrong.
I think you're an outlier in the sense that you don't recognize historical facts of what happened, but you still believe in fighting systemic poverty. Most people use it as an excuse to brush that problem under the rug. So kudos to you, and I mean that seriously, on being a solid human being.
But as for what happened, you either just plain don't know, or you have a bizarre personal definition of responsibility.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it's black people killing black people! since i'm white i totally eschew any sort of responsibility for that whatsoever! i do this knowing that everything about that is a vacuum condition with no issue of predominant socioeconomic legacies and discrimination and prejudice impacting entire generations.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm just wondering on what historical grounds anyone could seriously disagree.
Who brought black people here against their will, and kept them in bondage? Once that was (finally) ended in the land of the free, who made laws and upheld social systems that inflicted generational poverty? Which group of people has had to be dragged, kicking and screaming and not uncommonly with blood spilt, to nearer stages of equality?
Was it Inuit?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It was people. Some lighter then others. But individuals all. And here is a news flash...lots of abolitionists had creamy complexion. As a nation, we have made many mistakes and also many correct steps. But "whites"...no such club ever existed. I may owe the "black" man something as an American (yellow, brown, red, etc, our great country has effed over quite a few) but I owe no one a thing as a "white". Of course strictly speaking I am a Jew, but that is neither here nor there. I might owe those with less then myself my help, but that is because of who I am and not how much melatonin resides in my epidermis.
Want to overcome racism? Try belonging to the human race.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I see your point, and while I might have a certain amount of sympathy for it, it's just impossible to remove the racial component from our history.
It was a group of people who were not just self-professed racists who said specifically they were out to keep black people down, but were self-professed white supremacists.
I mean come on man, it wasn't just people who happen to be white keeping down people who happened to be black. It wasn't a coincidence. It was people who were white who wanted whites to stay in power who kept down blacks they wanted to keep in subservient roles.
Not every white person was a bad guy, but the vast majority of bad guys were white. I'd like it very much if we lived in a colorblind society, but pretending like race doesn't matter is, at this point, far more harmful than helpful to our society.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not saying that the group of evil people who oppressed the blacks -weren't- white. I'm saying that it is much more poinient that they were evil.
As to all people who remotely resemble those who evil guys now owing a debt for thier misdeeds...just silly.
Saying that black on black inner city violence should be seen as a macro economic/educational epidemic is just. Saying that -whites- owe it to blacks to fix things makes as much sense as saying those of German decent are culpable for the holocaust.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well on some level it's moot, because it's impossible to impose a special tax on white people to pay for fixing black people's problems, though I suspect if you created a special poverty fighting tax and only taxed those above the median income level, it would largely have the same effect. The cost would and should be a shared burden by all.
But to sort of get back to the root of this whole thing, it's impossible to understand the black reaction to Trayvon Martin without understanding where that white-black friction comes from, and it's impossible to understand why "you should focus more on your black on black violence problem" coming from white people is so insulting. We, as a society run by white people, created the poverty-stricken situation they live in that breeds such violence, then we proceed to lecture them on fixing it without much help? It's no wonder they aren't reacting cheerily.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Why in the world would I claim credit for the good things that America has done, even if I was American? I'm not an American yet; my green card requires renewal next year, and whether I take a citizenship oath or get the renewal depends on which costs less.
I get it. White people did bad things. My skin is white. I presumably should have to pay for their crimes based upon the color of my skin. I don't have to like it.
Whichever solutions end up being put in place should revolve more around socioeconomic status then race. Successful black people don't need the help; generationally poor white people often do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stone_Wolf,
If your stance is to deny race as a quality by which human beings are grouped entirely, as a concept, then there really can't be much discussion much less agreement on the matter it seems. All I can say is that this idea, while it is probably a nice one, seems very divorced from the actual reality of human events. But then you go on to point out that there was a particular racial group, so I really don't understand which angle you're coming from.
But as to the notion that 'everyone who resembles them owes for their misdeeds', it's been explained at least twice now in some detail that the reason isn't 'you look like these historical bad guys, therefore you owe'. The reason is 'your ancestors set up an oppressive, racist system from which you continue to benefit, and since it is difficult or impossible not to benefit, something is owed'. I'm not sure why you've latched onto the never-said idea that the grounds are 'we look the same'.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Here is the problem with all that. My ancestors didn't set up anything resembling what you have described. If your ansestors did that that might explain your guilt. But mine didn't. And here is why it really comes down to appearances. You assume simply because I have the low quantity of melatonin in my epidermis that my ancestors are culpable for some crime. They are not.
As to so called "white privledge" I'm half Russian Jew on my mother's side, so I guess my country club invitation got lost in the mail.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, the focus should not be on the fact that white ancestors set up the system, but rather that present-day white people unjustly benefit from it (insofar as they do).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Here is the problem with all that. My ancestors didn't set up anything resembling what you have described. If your ansestors did that that might explain your guilt. But mine didn't. And here is why it really comes down to appearances. You assume simply because I have the low quantity of melatonin in my epidermis that my ancestors are culpable for some crime. They are not.
As to so called "white privledge" I'm half Russian Jew on my mother's side, so I guess my country club invitation got lost in the mail.
This is getting pretty frustrating. It's been said at least twice each by both Lyrhawn and I that the point is not 'your ancestors did this, therefore you share blame' but rather 'an oppressive system was set up from which you presently benefit, whether or not your ancestors or even yourself have any hand in crafting it'. I'm not sure how that point can be made any plainer at this point.
As to white privilege, do you think there aren't any benefits to appearing white even if the details aren't 'traditionally' white? And by the way, on what basis do you completely eschew racial groupings (no such group as 'whites') but not religious, cultural, and national groupings (Russian Jew)?
You're more likely to be viewed more favorably by more people on a variety of issues from employment, housing, business, legal dealings, the list goes on, than you were if you appeared to belong to a minority. All of those people who don't benefit from that arbitrary genetic advantage, if playing field were truly level competition for all of those things would be steeper and more difficult and/or more expensive for you to access. There's the benefits for you.
Now you can take the approach 'I didn't set it up, therefore I owe nothing to its removal' (or because you do acknowledge an obligation to eliminate poverty, switch 'owe' to 'should do something for'). But please don't suggest that all of these things aren't happening and that they simply don't exist. Yes, poverty is the larger, wider problem. You know who is more poor, proportionally? It ain't white people (or if you insist, 'people with varying levels of melatonin').
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
But if we scaled aid to socioeconomic status, you'd still get minorities benefitting more (as most minorities do indeed have a higher proportion of poor people) while also not ignoring any poor white people who also need the help.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yep. If the motivation isn't white guilt, what's the logic behind racial aid instead of socioeconomic aid?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yep. If the motivation isn't white guilt, what's the logic behind racial aid instead of socioeconomic aid?
What type of aid are we talking about? Most government financial aid for food, housing, etc. is already based on socioeconomic status.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
So Zimmerman finally emerged from hiding for a bit.
Why?
To help a family out of an overturned vehicle that after an accident.
I'm just waiting for protesters try to spin this with some idiotic idea that Zimmerman caused the accident or that the family crashed because Zimmerman was following them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The reason is 'your ancestors set up an oppressive, racist system ...
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This is getting pretty frustrating. It's been said at least twice each by both Lyrhawn and I that the point is not 'your ancestors did this, therefore you share blame'
A great way to alleviate frustration is to actually read your own posts.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yep. If the motivation isn't white guilt, what's the logic behind racial aid instead of socioeconomic aid?
What type of aid are we talking about? Most government financial aid for food, housing, etc. is already based on socioeconomic status.
Rakeesh and Lyr are both talking a lot about alleviating various racial disparities.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: So Zimmerman finally emerged from hiding for a bit.
Why?
To help a family out of an overturned vehicle that after an accident.
I'm just waiting for protesters try to spin this with some idiotic idea that Zimmerman caused the accident or that the family crashed because Zimmerman was following them.
Anyone who says 'this happened because Zimmerman set it or caused it' with any kind of certainty would of course be more than a little silly.
That said, it is a fortunate coincidence that such a thing happened so shortly after he was acquitted. I'm not saying that means anyone should think he did something wrong-far from it. I'm saying that the initial, "Huh, that's surprising," for the timing is hardly unreasonable. It's what comes after that first thought that will likely be.
----------
Stone_Wolf,
OK, so you decided...I don't know...to latch onto one single point in a post, and completely ignore the rest of it? Are you going now to claim "when Rakeesh said 'ancestors' he obviously meant everyone, even those whose ancestors didn't live here" or something?
Come on. Gimme a freaking break. It should be obvious I didn't mean 'every single living white person in America ever has an ancestral piece of slavery' but since apparently it's not (to you), I'll clarify (again): the main modern reason for the sorts of things I'm talking about, and I think Lyrhawn is talking about, is because-ancestors or not-white people currently benefit from this setup and there's simply no way to avoid it, no amount of 'I don't see color' or 'races aren't real groups' that will wish it away.
Now are you going to continue to insist on focusing exclusively on bits and pieces and wasn't-actually-saids or what?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Rakeesh and Lyr are both talking a lot about alleviating various racial disparities.
Well there are white privilege issues with hiring, admissions, lending, and other situations which unfairly advantage whites over blacks regardless of income level. Addressing income level rather than race for affirmative action seems like maybe not such a great idea. But that wouldn't be aid, it would be regulation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not totally sure what I'd do to fix a problem as long-standing, complex and damaging as the one we've created.
Direct payments to blacks is politically impossible. I'm not even sure it's totally fair, only because plenty of white immigrants had problems, but at some point just about all of them had a chance, with shifting societal perceptions of whiteness, to become mainstream Americans. It was a barrier almost totally eradicated for ethnic whites by WW2.
But even so, none of them were held back for as long or as completely as blacks were.
I think if you want to help, not so much to repay every dime they might be "owed" for past injustices the way you might if this was a lawsuit, but help in a way that gives the black community a fighting chance, you do it in four ways.
1. Education. Massive funding for inner city schools. Erase the gap between an inner city and suburban education and create a massive scholarship fund for inner city youths who can make it to college but can't afford it. This helps to ensure that, for all our other problems, maybe time will solve half the problem for us simply by getting them an education and a better chance at a good job.
2. Housing. Restrictive housing policies is probably the single most lasting, damaging legacy of damage done to the black community. White governments made it impossible for blacks to leave the inner city, and then created a situation where black housing values plummeted. The single greatest investment most families make is their house. Whites got to make those investments in the suburbs and reaped the benefits. Blacks did not. Many were forced to abandon their homes and become renters, thousands were destroyed by gentrification, highway projects and other developments under eminent domain. A huge investment is needed to clean up inner city housing. Knock down blighted buildings, fix up old ones, and work on getting anyone who wants to own into a house, even if it's just a small starter home, so they can start somewhere, and property values can start to rise. It's probably the most direct form of justice as well since we've denied them the chance for decades.
3. Jobs. This ties back to education because many simply aren't qualified. The government should enter into a private-public partnership with business to fund a program of job training. The government will fund, maybe with a small portion from corporations, the training of workers for specific jobs waiting for them when they finish their training. That way they gain job skills and experience they can take with them to the next job if this one doesn't last long. It's not a giveaway, they'd still have to work hard, but they'd get a big leg up that they need.
4. Public safety. I think this would be a medium-term investment that wouldn't have to be sustained long term. A big investment now to flood the street with cops and other crime fighting technologies to sort of shock and awe the inner city would be a good start. As more people get jobs, schools improve, and kids get more positively involved, crime will naturally drop, and the police presence can be reduced.
There are more things, of course, but I think big investments, over time, would solve the biggest problems involved with poverty. A lot of white families still in cities will find themselves uplifted by this as well. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
I've been without access for a bit so wasn't able to see responses. Without digging too far down I'll say:
I'm Canadian now living in the US, past 10+ years. I go a few generations back in Canada, and then German/Russian back farther. If my great-great grandfather somehow purchasing some imported cotton(?) on the Canadian prairies somehow makes my family culpable for the black person's plight,then guilty as charged.
Rakeesh, your posting style comes across snide and a bit angry. I'm all for spirited debate, and you might be someone I'd enjoy having a beer with in the real world but I'm not all that interested in engaging with you here.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Scott -
Well, if you're a non-citizen alien living here on what I'm guess is whatever the equivalent of a green card is right now, I guess this doesn't necessarily apply to you as much.
Your parentage doesn't matter. Your ancestry doesn't matter. If you're an American, you have a duty to address the wrongs committed by your government, whether those wrongs are happening now or happened 200 years ago, if the ill-effects are still lasting to the present. I think this is something that Stone Wolf might basically agree with, because he agrees that as a society we should help each other, his problem is with the issue of guilt or blame. I'm much, much less interested in this debate. We can argue genealogy until we are all blue in the face, but it doesn't change anything.
No one here is advocating a special tax on white people to give money only to black people. So it's really a moot point. But I think we should all recognize white mostly white America did to mostly Black America if we want to even get a tiny glimpse into the current mindset and situation of black Americans.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: I've been without access for a bit so wasn't able to see responses. Without digging too far down I'll say:
I'm Canadian now living in the US, past 10+ years. I go a few generations back in Canada, and then German/Russian back farther. If my great-great grandfather somehow purchasing some imported cotton(?) on the Canadian prairies somehow makes my family culpable for the black person's plight,then guilty as charged.
Rakeesh, your posting style comes across snide and a bit angry. I'm all for spirited debate, and you might be someone I'd enjoy having a beer with in the real world but I'm not all that interested in engaging with you here.
Well I can't fault you for that perception, since after what came across to me as something of a sneering, condescending talk about the immorality of not lecturing black America on intra-racial violence...well, perhaps you get the idea. If I read condescension into that where none was intended, I'll cop to your having no ill intent and offer a conditional apology, but...
Here's the thing: it doesn't really matter if anything negative was meant as to whether it was a patronizing set of remarks on race relations. Furthermore, as has been pretty common in this thread, you latched exclusively onto the question of blame even (as of this post) after repeated explanations that that wasn't the main or even an important point.
Lyrhawn is a more thoughtful, courteous poster than I am. He doesn't get irritated or snarky as quickly which is to his credit even though that's not always a high bar. As for me, though, I'll just reiterate my frustration that other, *much* more important components of what we're saying are being almost completely ignored in favor of focusing on what is all but a straw man argument.
No special tax. No historical blame for everyone with fair skin. No modern white people owe a guilt debt for slavery. No modern white people ought to feel guilty about slavery. I'm wondering if I should throw up even more of these ahead of time (and again).
Here is what I (and possbly Lyrhawn, and MattP) are saying: Americans who appear to be white cannot just ignore the special problems of race relations and systems of prejudice because they still benefit from them. It's almost in the dang air. Oh! Here's another one: no every white person is a racist of some form or another, and no every white person is guilty of racial prejudice to even a small degree. That's irrelevant. In order to benefit from these things that have been done and are still being done, it's not required that a person have even prejudiced thoughts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Direct payments to blacks is weird anyway.
Programs designed to alleviate these issues will necessarily be targeted on racial lines, because they will understand how profoundly race is at issue in furthering the perpetuation of entrapping socioeconomic and sociocultural issues. Beyond that, though, the issue isn't about marketing white guilt (or shouldn't be). It's about spades and spades.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh: I find your comments as tiresome as predictable.
Lyr: I find your comments as thoughtful as agreeable.
Personally I think it has far more to do with culture then "race". This guy is far more employable then this guy. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rakeesh: I find your comments as tiresome as predictable.
Lyr: I find your comments as thoughtful as agreeable.
Personally I think it has far more to do with culture then "race". This guy is far more employable then this guy.
OK, so you're still going to pretend he and I are saying substantially different things on this topic. Got it. Feel free to show me where, by the way, at your earliest convenience. If you try that single-line quote while ignoring a bunch of other stuff again, though, please expect it to be pointed out.
The trick is to repeatedly criticize me for things I didn't say, said once in a particular context, or said and then further qualified but ignore the further qualification part. But I don't need to tell you how to do that, do I?
But just for fun, to show you the other way to do it (and to give you further excuse to ignore a direct challenge to your argument):
As for those two pictures, well that depends. What's the first man's name compared to the second? Here's a hint: it matters. If he's got a name culturally associated with a 'racial' minority in this country, he may have a harder time getting his application read or his phone calls returned. How many siblings has the first man had gunned down or victimized by violent crime versus the second? What kind of home was the first man able to grow up in versus the second man?
But above all, do you find it strange or did you even notice that the second man whom you find less employable is adopting, in that picture, some cultural norms more associated with 'blacks' than 'whites' in the US? The second man is 'acting black', is what many people would think (even if they wouldn't say it), and he's the one you think is less employable.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Scott -
Well, if you're a non-citizen alien living here on what I'm guess is whatever the equivalent of a green card is right now, I guess this doesn't necessarily apply to you as much.
Your parentage doesn't matter. Your ancestry doesn't matter. If you're an American, you have a duty to address the wrongs committed by your government, whether those wrongs are happening now or happened 200 years ago, if the ill-effects are still lasting to the present. I think this is something that Stone Wolf might basically agree with, because he agrees that as a society we should help each other, his problem is with the issue of guilt or blame. I'm much, much less interested in this debate. We can argue genealogy until we are all blue in the face, but it doesn't change anything.
No one here is advocating a special tax on white people to give money only to black people. So it's really a moot point. But I think we should all recognize white mostly white America did to mostly Black America if we want to even get a tiny glimpse into the current mindset and situation of black Americans.
I don't disagree with anything you've said here. But is there really a substantial % of people who don't recognize what mostly white America did to black America?
Tonight I watched "42" (Jackie Robinson bio) with my family and talked to my kids about how disgusting, prejudiced and messed up white people were to blacks. The film is an exposé on racism. Maybe because I'm in the pacific NW I'm less likely to see evidence of denial?
I also still have a fundamental issue with past generational crimes excusing current day responsibilities. I get that they're directly connected, but it seems like today you don't dare discuss the latter without being accused of denying the former.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh Here is what I (and possbly Lyrhawn, and MattP) are saying: Americans who appear to be white cannot just ignore the special problems of race relations and systems of prejudice because they still benefit from them. It's almost in the dang air. Oh! Here's another one: no every white person is a racist of some form or another, and no every white person is guilty of racial prejudice to even a small degree. That's irrelevant. In order to benefit from these things that have been done and are still being done, it's not required that a person have even prejudiced thoughts. [/QB]
Alright, I don't disagree with this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't disagree with anything you've said here. But is there really a substantial % of people who don't recognize what mostly white America did to black America?
Tonight I watched "42" (Jackie Robinson bio) with my family and talked to my kids about how disgusting, prejudiced and messed up white people were to blacks. The film is an exposé on racism. Maybe because I'm in the pacific NW I'm less likely to see evidence of denial?
It might be better to say that the problem isn't that more than a few people don't recognize what was done, but that they often think the problems were largely solved in the 60s and 70s. For example, integrated (well, in fits and starts) professional athletics in the 40s and 50s, but can you tell me how many members of Congress are black? It's more than a few points below their proportion of the country as a whole, and then let's not even get into women in government.
Here's the ultimate reality: we're not done yet. It's not time to start talking post-racial in the US yet. Perhaps it will be someday. But-and here's the important thing-even if you (general 'you') don't say we're post-racial, if you react as though we are, there's not much difference.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Direct payments to blacks is weird anyway.
Programs designed to alleviate these issues will necessarily be targeted on racial lines, because they will understand how profoundly race is at issue in furthering the perpetuation of entrapping socioeconomic and sociocultural issues. Beyond that, though, the issue isn't about marketing white guilt (or shouldn't be). It's about spades and spades.
Ah. I was under the assumption that generational poverty occurs because the parents lack the necessary life skills to be successful themselves, and therefore can not pass them on to their children. Wealth management, the value of education, substance abuse, etc. It becomes a cycle.
Is it your opinion that generational, cyclical poverty does not occur in the white population? In the cities or rural areas, whereever? If you do think that occurs, do you believe that the children and young people trapped in such cycles don't deserve help, that it is somehow their fault? I understand that white people, for the most part, rule this country. I don't think that extends to saying that all white people have it easy. You could say, perhaps, they have it easier; but a person asked to climb over a smooth fifteen foot high wall unassisted is not in a good place just because some other poor bastard has to climb one that is twenty feet tall.
I much prefer Lyrhawn's ideas. Help out the inner cities, help those mired in poverty, and allow the rising tide to lift all boats. Blacks and minorities, being disproportionally represented in such areas, will still get more help then other races this way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Scott -
Well, if you're a non-citizen alien living here on what I'm guess is whatever the equivalent of a green card is right now, I guess this doesn't necessarily apply to you as much.
Your parentage doesn't matter. Your ancestry doesn't matter. If you're an American, you have a duty to address the wrongs committed by your government, whether those wrongs are happening now or happened 200 years ago, if the ill-effects are still lasting to the present. I think this is something that Stone Wolf might basically agree with, because he agrees that as a society we should help each other, his problem is with the issue of guilt or blame. I'm much, much less interested in this debate. We can argue genealogy until we are all blue in the face, but it doesn't change anything.
No one here is advocating a special tax on white people to give money only to black people. So it's really a moot point. But I think we should all recognize white mostly white America did to mostly Black America if we want to even get a tiny glimpse into the current mindset and situation of black Americans.
I don't disagree with anything you've said here. But is there really a substantial % of people who don't recognize what mostly white America did to black America?
Tonight I watched "42" (Jackie Robinson bio) with my family and talked to my kids about how disgusting, prejudiced and messed up white people were to blacks. The film is an exposé on racism. Maybe because I'm in the pacific NW I'm less likely to see evidence of denial?
I also still have a fundamental issue with past generational crimes excusing current day responsibilities. I get that they're directly connected, but it seems like today you don't dare discuss the latter without being accused of denying the former.
To your first question: Yes.
A huge number of people don't understand the full breadth of the harm caused. Most people think racism was solved when blacks could eat at lunch counters and go to movie theaters, or play on baseball teams. But that's sort of the public face of racism. The private face has much more powerful and damaging lasting effects. It's things like hiring practices, housing discrimination, and the lack of decent educational facilities. Our racial geographic segregation is one of the biggest lasting problems that resulted from racist policies. Most people don't understand the enormity of the issue, in part because they aren't confronted with it, and in part because the US education system doesn't teach it. That's why you get a lot of people who look at the inner cities as a problem for blacks created by blacks. They don't have any understanding of the history behind major US cities.
I haven't seen "42," but does it go much beyond the sort of nasty person-to-person racism that Robinson suffered? I'd be pleasantly surprised if it did.
As to your last point, I guess I'm not sure what you mean. In what world would it be okay to shrug off present day responsibilities while also recognizing past crimes?
"Wow we really messed up back then and the effects are just awful today. But we have no intention of doing anything about it."
Maybe I'm not reading you clearly. I'd welcome clarification.
I think if most people really, truly understood just how destructive racism was, not just as a mindset where whites were really really mean to black people, but as a function of social engineering, as a means to intentionally keep black people deprived of self-respect, safety, wealth, education, mobility and many other basic functions of life, how it was instituted as state policy, and where it wasn't it was social cultural policy among white communities to not sell to blacks, to not employ blacks except as menial labor, to not treat them like humans.
That goes way, way beyond "Jackie Robinson had a tough time breaking into baseball." And I think most people would fail to recognize how big a problem it was, or the connections from then to now.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
42 is standard hollywood fare, essentially the same story that's been told in Ali, Glory Road, etc. While you don't get any sense of the "real" Robinson, it was refreshing to see those people who were not racist douchebags help him at their own peril.
My last comment was more about how discussions around blacks-black violence seem to often leave little room for any responsibility beyond the "we (whites) did this" comment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My last comment was more about how discussions around blacks-black violence seem to often leave little room for any responsibility...
I was actually intrigued by a study recently done on "black-on-black" violence that concluded that the phenomenon is largely a myth, or rather an accident of circumstance. Crimes are committed by people against people who are near them, by and large. In the suburbs, for example, you see a lot of white-on-white crime, in roughly the same ratio as black-on-black crime in majority black areas. The combination of high crime and a large proportion of blacks makes it look like there's a "black-on-black" crime problem, but really it's neighbor-on-neighbor. If your neighbors are criminals, regardless of your skin color, you stand a good chance of being victimized.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think if most people really, truly understood just how destructive racism was, not just as a mindset where whites were really really mean to black people, but as a function of social engineering, as a means to intentionally keep black people deprived of self-respect, safety, wealth, education, mobility and many other basic functions of life, how it was instituted as state policy, and where it wasn't it was social cultural policy among white communities to not sell to blacks, to not employ blacks except as menial labor, to not treat them like humans.
That goes way, way beyond "Jackie Robinson had a tough time breaking into baseball." And I think most people would fail to recognize how big a problem it was, or the connections from then to now.
The Levar Burton thing is weird. Isn't it good for everyone to do that when they get stopped by the cops? That's what I was taught, certainly. Also to be courteous and not evasive.
The "how to not be shot" bit of it is... I mean, he's never been shot by the cops. So that's just speculation. But it's certainly good "how to not antagonize the cops" advice.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ah, I read the transcript but didn't watch the video. Didn't get that he puts both hands all the way out the window.
Okay that's a step further than I was taught. Left hand out, right hand in full view on the steering wheel. I guess that's white privilege.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Isn't it good for everyone to do that when they get stopped by the cops?
I think you'll find, if you ask around, that very few people do that as part of a routine traffic stop.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Including few black people, I bet. Most people get grumpy and upset when they get pulled over.
But I bet cops like it when people respond the above way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Ah, I read the transcript but didn't watch the video. Didn't get that he puts both hands all the way out the window.
Okay that's a step further than I was taught. Left hand out, right hand in full view on the steering wheel. I guess that's white privilege.
You say that rather flippantly.
But learning to deal with the cops as a black person and learning to deal with the cops as a white person are drastically different. I never had to be pulled aside as a kid and told how to deal with cops.
But I've also never been pulled over for driving while white. Well, except one time when I was lost in Detroit, a cop pulled me over and asked if I was lost, and sent me on my way. I've never been stopped by cops on the street for no reason. I've never been profiled. I've never had a personal experience where I viewed the cops as anything but the good guys. It's just a totally different experience.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Anecdotal authority arguments don't work.
I've experienced plenty of situations with hostile police; I had a gun pointed at me and my older brother by an officer when I was about 8. I was stopped for over an hour and had my car thoroughly searched when I was a kid, for "driving while white" late at night. That was the most frustrating example in a collection of similar instances though.
So what? What does that prove? It's always possible to say "you can't understand X" but that's bull. It's always possible to understand things, if they are sufficiently explained. Your statement here is basically just dismissing any disagreement or comment as invalid because I can't understand. So... What then? How do you get from here to your conclusions?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
If we find an affluent black guy who's not had as many run-ins with the cops as me then do I get to be the one lecturing him on how things really are? Or is that not how it works?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Anecdotal authority arguments don't work.
I've experienced plenty of situations with hostile police; I had a gun pointed at me and my older brother by an officer when I was about 8. I was stopped for over an hour and had my car thoroughly searched when I was a kid, for "driving while white" late at night. That was the most frustrating example in a collection of similar instances though.
So what? What does that prove? It's always possible to say "you can't understand X" but that's bull. It's always possible to understand things, if they are sufficiently explained. Your statement here is basically just dismissing any disagreement or comment as invalid because I can't understand. So... What then? How do you get from here to your conclusions?
Well, at no point have I ever said you CAN'T understand.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
So long as you really haven't done anything wrong or illegal, there's nothing wrong or stupid about not cooperating with the police. As I've said many a time, they're not there to help people. They're there to arrest people. A lot of people, depending on where they live and what they look like, would be wise to invest in an automobile DVR. Strangely enough, when you put the cops on camera they tend to get more polite and possess a better recall of what the law is. They definitely don't like that, and have made an effort to make filming police officers illegal, but across the board those efforts have been getting cut down.
A few months back I tried the whole "I'm not answering any questions, am I being detained? Am I free to go?" routine and it worked perfectly fine, because I hadn't actually broken any laws. The cop got pissy, then he got threatening, and then he let me go.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've never been stopped by a cop who was rude to me.
My last interaction with an officer was when a really nice sheriff popped the door on my friend's car when she locked her keys inside. He was a lifesaver.
I've only ever been pulled over for speeding, and they've been nothing but courteous, though occasionally sometimes stern in a road safety sort of sense. I thought the cop in Iowa was a douche for pulling me over for going five over, but c'est la vie.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Anecdotal authority arguments don't work.
I've experienced plenty of situations with hostile police; I had a gun pointed at me and my older brother by an officer when I was about 8. I was stopped for over an hour and had my car thoroughly searched when I was a kid, for "driving while white" late at night. That was the most frustrating example in a collection of similar instances though.
So what? What does that prove? It's always possible to say "you can't understand X" but that's bull. It's always possible to understand things, if they are sufficiently explained. Your statement here is basically just dismissing any disagreement or comment as invalid because I can't understand. So... What then? How do you get from here to your conclusions?
Well, at no point have I ever said you CAN'T understand.
Sorry to misquote you. That was the impression I took from what you were saying, but you didn't explicitly say. I was readin extra assumptions into it.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've never been stopped by a cop who was rude to me.
My last interaction with an officer was when a really nice sheriff popped the door on my friend's car when she locked her keys inside. He was a lifesaver.
I've only ever been pulled over for speeding, and they've been nothing but courteous, though occasionally sometimes stern in a road safety sort of sense. I thought the cop in Iowa was a douche for pulling me over for going five over, but c'est la vie.
That's been my experience too. Cops have a very tough job and I go out of my way to make it as easy as possible if I'm stopped, for both our sakes. I alwys try and put myself in their shoes as they're approaching my car. Like all professions, there are cops who are jerks (or worse) but the vast majority of them are good people IMO.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The argument you guys are making a little too broad. There are some cases of black violence that aren't anyone's historical responsibility. There are plenty of crimes that were dictated very primarily by bad choices, where the guilty part had a good life to take advantage of. Not that you guys don't understand that, but sticking it into a vacuum (or at least appearing to) at the outset is a little lazy, and might be some of the reason you guys are getting resistance.
With that said, some crimes are obviously a product of socioecenomic circumstances in someone's life. But personally I would never prefer to assert that it's our responsability because of their race. That doesn't mean it's not true, but the main bread and butter of the argument is that they're poor. There is more to it, but that is the biggest thing. And there are plenty of poor people in the world who never had good opportunities, of many races. I feel responsible (and that the wealthy should feel repsonsible), with very little "discrimination", to them all equally. And for my part, thats completely independant of what my ancestors did or didn't do. **** them.
To that point, I feel like anyone successful, black, white, multi-racial(me), muslim, all share equal burden in that. I'm more responsible if I'm richer, not if I'm white.
[ July 23, 2013, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
ScottF
The reason that bad cops (and I'm not as sure as you are that they're in the minority) get so much more attention is that the bad apples of other professions don't get to show that they're bad apples by intimidating, beating, and killing people.
Umberhulk
Good post. I agree completely.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Anecdotal authority arguments don't work.
I've experienced plenty of situations with hostile police; I had a gun pointed at me and my older brother by an officer when I was about 8. I was stopped for over an hour and had my car thoroughly searched when I was a kid, for "driving while white" late at night. That was the most frustrating example in a collection of similar instances though.
So what? What does that prove? It's always possible to say "you can't understand X" but that's bull. It's always possible to understand things, if they are sufficiently explained. Your statement here is basically just dismissing any disagreement or comment as invalid because I can't understand. So... What then? How do you get from here to your conclusions?
Well, at no point have I ever said you CAN'T understand.
Sorry to misquote you. That was the impression I took from what you were saying, but you didn't explicitly say. I was readin extra assumptions into it.
You were indeed, but I'm glad you said something so we could get a little closer to each other's mindsets.
I don't think it's impossible to understand on an intellectual level. I think there are things in life that cannot be learned through explanation, like certain traumatic experiences, though that's perhaps a separate issue.
I think, for our purposes here, the point is that yes, you can gain a pretty good understanding of these issues. But it requires more than most people will ever give of themselves. I've been studying race relations for the last two years as my profession, and I barely feel like I have a good handle on it. That's not because I'm lazy or stupid, it'd because it's a huge issue with a wealth of information that has to be consumed to make up for a lived reality that you likely didn't grow up with. I've nutshelled it for you in various places in this thread, but I still feel like you either think I'm being melodramatic, or it hasn't quite sunk in (for you, ScottF, or others who don't think it's as big a deal).
I mean Umberhulk's comments below sort of get it right and wrong at the same time. He says it's not about race, it's about poverty. Yes, poverty and all it entails is probably the single biggest problem involved. But why are so many black people disproportionately poor? I'll give you a hint; it's not a coincidence that that blacks are disproportionately poor. It was by design.
To try a different route: Why am I trying so hard to get some of you to understand the role that race played in how we got here, and in recognizing the cause of inner city poverty? It's not because I want you all to feel personally responsible, or personally bad, for something someone else did. Most of you seem to believe that, regardless of race, we have an obligation to help the poor. Awesome! But if you want to understand HOW we got to where we are, why the inner city is the way it is, and maybe clue in to what black people think about all this, you have to understand the role race played in this history. If you think you can remove race from the equation, you will inevitably get it wrong.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Anecdotal authority arguments don't work.
I've experienced plenty of situations with hostile police; I had a gun pointed at me and my older brother by an officer when I was about 8. I was stopped for over an hour and had my car thoroughly searched when I was a kid, for "driving while white" late at night. That was the most frustrating example in a collection of similar instances though.
So what? What does that prove? It's always possible to say "you can't understand X" but that's bull. It's always possible to understand things, if they are sufficiently explained. Your statement here is basically just dismissing any disagreement or comment as invalid because I can't understand. So... What then? How do you get from here to your conclusions?
Well, at no point have I ever said you CAN'T understand.
Sorry to misquote you. That was the impression I took from what you were saying, but you didn't explicitly say. I was readin extra assumptions into it.
You were indeed, but I'm glad you said something so we could get a little closer to each other's mindsets.
I don't think it's impossible to understand on an intellectual level. I think there are things in life that cannot be learned through explanation, like certain traumatic experiences, though that's perhaps a separate issue.
I think, for our purposes here, the point is that yes, you can gain a pretty good understanding of these issues. But it requires more than most people will ever give of themselves. I've been studying race relations for the last two years as my profession, and I barely feel like I have a good handle on it. That's not because I'm lazy or stupid, it'd because it's a huge issue with a wealth of information that has to be consumed to make up for a lived reality that you likely didn't grow up with. I've nutshelled it for you in various places in this thread, but I still feel like you either think I'm being melodramatic, or it hasn't quite sunk in (for you, ScottF, or others who don't think it's as big a deal).
I mean Umberhulk's comments below sort of get it right and wrong at the same time. He says it's not about race, it's about poverty. Yes, poverty and all it entails is probably the single biggest problem involved. But why are so many black people disproportionately poor? I'll give you a hint; it's not a coincidence that that blacks are disproportionately poor. It was by design.
Of course. But all poverty ever was. I just care 99% about the result, not the cause.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh: I was going to write you a long reply. Instead I'll just say this: there is a fundamental difference between what you and Lry are saying. He accepts when someone says "help everyone in need reguardless of race" while you fight tooth and nail (and quite nastily) for every inch, every detail. Personally I think that's because he really cares about the under privileged while you mostly care who you can look better then on the internet.
I don't know about you guys but my father specifically taught me how to act when pulled over. Open all windows, turn on overhead light if dark out, turn off your car, place your keys on the dash, either put your hands on the wheel or behind your head, never reach for anything, greet the officer with "How can I help you sir?", be honest, be calm, be respectfully, always ask permision to get things like your wallet or reg. I've been let off the hook for upwards of a dozen speeding tickets, and once for a felony (wielding a sword in public). I've never been arrested or had a gun pulled on me, and I used to speed at all times and working at shooting ranges often had a gun in my car (legally).
When my dad taught me how to act when pulled over he told me there are two reasons to act this way. 1. Cops have a stressful and difficult job and are on the front lines of keeping you safe from things that go bump in the night. And more importantly 2. They have guns and might shoot you.
Its just good advice. No matter the color of your skin.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh: I was going to write you a long reply. Instead I'll just say this: there is a fundamental difference between what you and Lry are saying. He accepts when someone says "help everyone in need reguardless of race" while you fight tooth and nail (and quite nastily) for every inch, every detail. Personally I think that's because he really cares about the under privileged while you mostly care who you can look better then on the internet.
Heh. Not like you though, right? Because, y'know, otherwise what was the point of that post?
Anyway, he accepts as a good thing the desire to alleviate poverty. So do I. But I think in your rush to condemn me for caring about who I can look better than on the internet by expressing your own superiority, you may have missed the part where he's said-repeatedly-that while this is a good thing, a denial of racial causes will ultimately lead to the effort to alleviate poverty being less effective than it could be.
quote: Its just good advice. No matter the color of your skin.
Quite true. Though it's even more useful advice if you happen to belong to a specific group more likely to be responded to violently by the police. Which is rather the point.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Anecdotal authority arguments don't work.
I've experienced plenty of situations with hostile police; I had a gun pointed at me and my older brother by an officer when I was about 8. I was stopped for over an hour and had my car thoroughly searched when I was a kid, for "driving while white" late at night. That was the most frustrating example in a collection of similar instances though.
So what? What does that prove? It's always possible to say "you can't understand X" but that's bull. It's always possible to understand things, if they are sufficiently explained. Your statement here is basically just dismissing any disagreement or comment as invalid because I can't understand. So... What then? How do you get from here to your conclusions?
Well, at no point have I ever said you CAN'T understand.
Sorry to misquote you. That was the impression I took from what you were saying, but you didn't explicitly say. I was readin extra assumptions into it.
You were indeed, but I'm glad you said something so we could get a little closer to each other's mindsets.
I don't think it's impossible to understand on an intellectual level. I think there are things in life that cannot be learned through explanation, like certain traumatic experiences, though that's perhaps a separate issue.
I think, for our purposes here, the point is that yes, you can gain a pretty good understanding of these issues. But it requires more than most people will ever give of themselves. I've been studying race relations for the last two years as my profession, and I barely feel like I have a good handle on it. That's not because I'm lazy or stupid, it'd because it's a huge issue with a wealth of information that has to be consumed to make up for a lived reality that you likely didn't grow up with. I've nutshelled it for you in various places in this thread, but I still feel like you either think I'm being melodramatic, or it hasn't quite sunk in (for you, ScottF, or others who don't think it's as big a deal).
I mean Umberhulk's comments below sort of get it right and wrong at the same time. He says it's not about race, it's about poverty. Yes, poverty and all it entails is probably the single biggest problem involved. But why are so many black people disproportionately poor? I'll give you a hint; it's not a coincidence that that blacks are disproportionately poor. It was by design.
Of course. But all poverty ever was. I just care 99% about the result, not the cause.
You're going to have to explain the first part. All poverty that exists in America (let alone the world) was designed to be so?
And as Rakeesh said, I would argue that understanding the cause increases your chances of a good result. From a point of political viability, most of the people who oppose doing anything about it do so on the basis that it's not their problem, they had nothing to do with it, and those people brought it on themselves. Understanding how the status quo came to be could be a powerful tool in marshaling support for a fix. Otherwise you're going to spend a lot of time shouting at the wind.
Or maybe it's just that I'm a historian, and the cause always matters to me. Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
After re-reading the last two pages I realize I was treading old ground, basically. I feel I have to come back. Especially considering my last, brief post.
I think most cases of extreme poverty or hardship is the result of some systemic failure. Some of those failures are crimes. Some of them are neglegent, some just accidental. Systemic racism is included in that. If we have a duty to respond to any one thing, then by principle we have the same duty to respond to all of it. But when looking at two people suffering equally because of systemic imperfections, then which sum of governement failures, and how malicious or accidental they were, is academic--because we look at it in retrospect and therefore we know the results. It's important to comprehend how we got there, but the thing, in my opinion, that aid planning and policy should be focused on, are the standing life styles of all the people we need to help. With perhaps some consideration, not the system racism of the past, but maybe the systemic racism that still exists.
And given what I've read, I'm actually not sure who agrees and disagrees with that.
[ July 24, 2013, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh. Not like you though, right? Because, y'know, otherwise what was the point of your post?
The point of my post is to make it clear to you that I am not interested in playing these passive aggressive games with you anymore because I just don't put a single iota of faith in your intentions and further just plain don't enjoy it. And more to the point, I just have nothing to prove to you.
quote:Quite true. Though it's even more useful advice if you happen to belong to a specific group more likely to be responded to violently by the police. Which is rather the point.
I think you rather missed my point. That even white people fear being shot by the police and take measures against it. I wonder if one could look at statistics about police shooting and see how those who fall into the majority culture, regardless of skin tone vs. those in, shall we call it, hip-hop/gangster culture, regardless of skin tone. I'd bet that it is far more relevant if someone is disrespectful, angry, aggressive and belligerent then simply having a dark complextion.
[ July 24, 2013, 04:35 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If we find an affluent black guy who's not had as many run-ins with the cops as me then do I get to be the one lecturing him on how things really are? Or is that not how it works?
Well, I don't know. Are there much (or is there anything) in the way of documented systemic issues wherein law enforcement is profiling and discriminating against whites in this country? Are there any places in the entire nation where someone legitimately gets to say "yo, watch out, the cops here don't like white folk and will run you up on anything" — how big are they? Individual precincts? Which police districts? Where?
In Milwaukee, as just a single example not even near the worst of what America has to offer blacks in terms of prejudice, profiling, discrimination, harassment — a study of over 46,000 traffic stops showed that Driving While Black will get you pulled over seven times as often as a white driver will be pulled over, without any real difference in chargeable offenses. Black drivers had their cars searched at least twice as often as white drivers, but without any increase in seized weapons, drugs or stolen property versus white drivers.
Milwaukee's police department claimed that this was a byproduct of "targeted crime fighting" — that the rates were because most of the patrols were going on in high crime neighborhoods where blacks live — but this doesn't account for the fact that where a black driver was at most risk of being stopped by the police was when they were in a predominantly white and wealthier district, someplace where they, evidently, didn't look like they belonged.
Is there seriously one one-millionth of these sorts of discriminatory wide-scale forces acting against whites? No. Is there some area in the united states where documentable targeting and profiling of whites causes the whites to fear the police and have to teach their kids about the extra precautions they have to take because of their skin color, regardless of affluence, due to the potentially fatal condition of being white? It's mostly a hypothetical question. I don't think there is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'd bet that it is far more relevant if someone is disrespectful, angry, aggressive and belligerent then simply having a dark complextion.
And in instances where we're only talking about people who aren't being 'belligerent' to the cops and are only acting respectful, would you bet that having a dark complexion isn't relevant to outcome? Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Hey, it's possible. It's a possibility that simply being black is enough to get you straight up murdered by a law enforcement officer, in this day and age, in this media frenzied country of ours. Not likely though.
But I'd bet that having a dark complexion isn't consistently relevant to the outcome of getting shot by the police where as being belligerent, threatening, aggressive etc is. Or at least tazored or pepper sprayed.
Now, I know your point was simply being hassled by the coppers. And it is a fair one. And I agree that something should be done about it. But please note I was not talking about being pulled over and having your car searched. I was talking about getting shot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Being of a dark complexion is consistently relevant to the outcome of interactions with police, both within and outside of the specific issue of your chances of being shot by a cop. All else being equal, if you're black, you have more of a chance of being handled fatally by the police in a given instance.
Association tests to police even show how they're more likely to associate blacks as criminal, more dangerous. On an implicit psychological level, even if they don't think they're racist about it. Even when they are not consciously profiling and being racist, they're more likely to see your cell phone as a gun. And, very often, they're profiling and being racist anyway. Great world in which to have black skin in your average police "confrontation."
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Cops make my spidey senses tingle and I'm as white as the driven snow. I can't imagine how much worse it would be if I were black. (Or, as I live in Arizona, Hispanic. Arpaio's "pull them over if they're brown to see if they're legal" sweeps only stopped two or three years back, by federal order.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stone_Wolf,
quote:The point of my post is to make it clear to you that I am not interested in playing these passive aggressive games with you anymore because I just don't put a single iota of faith in your intentions and further just plain don't enjoy it. And more to the point, I just have nothing to prove to you.
You're not interested in 'playing these...games' and you have 'nothing to prove' and your chosen method of expressing this is to...play that game and announce my inferiority to you?
Interesting.
quote:I think you rather missed my point. That even white people fear being shot by the police and take measures against it. I wonder if one could look at statistics about police shooting and see how those who fall into the majority culture, regardless of skin tone vs. those in, shall we call it, hip-hop/gangster culture, regardless of skin tone. I'd bet that it is far more relevant if someone is disrespectful, angry, aggressive and belligerent then simply having a dark complextion.
So your point was 'everyone should be concerned about not antagonizing police'? Well, alright, that's a valid opinion. I'm not sure what relevance it has to this discussion. And as to the rest, well sure I suspect if a white person actively antagonizes a police officer with hints of violence they'll likely get a more forceful response than a randomly chosen black person.
If they manage to get pulled over to encounter that police officer, that is. Which is often much, much less likely. Which is relevant to the conversation, and why I said the advice would be more valuable depending on which group you belong to.
quote:Hey, it's possible. It's a possibility that simply being black is enough to get you straight up murdered by a law enforcement officer, in this day and age, in this media frenzied country of ours. Not likely though.
...Maybe someone else can handle this one.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I'll give it a go, I guess.
Meeting a police officer in any capacity is a little like meeting a strange dog. Most dogs are friendly enough, so long as you don't scare them or pull on their tail or something like that. If you meet a mean one, or piss off a nice one, though, they can be very dangerous. You have to be careful and wary.
The point that is trying to be made, here, is that just being a minority is enough, in many places throughout the country, to bring the strange dog to you much more often then is likely for a white person. Therefore, whatever risks are inherent in that sort of meeting, a minority is more likely to suffer them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh...those are bold face lies. Go play with someone else.
Obama...Thanks for trying, but I fully acknowledged the point being made. Samp and Rakeesh are, simply put, two of the most argumentitive right fighters Hatrack has to offer.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rakeesh...those are bold face lies. Go play with someone else.
Obama...Thanks for trying, but I fully acknowledged the point being made. Samp and Rakeesh are, simply put, two of the most argumentitive right fighters Hatrack has to offer.
Yeah, you don't actually 'fully acknowledge' them. For instance, when these points are made you point out, "Yeah, but everyone needs to be careful about the cops," etc. Further example given you openly state that being a minority isn't really enough to get you shot by a police officer anymore.
They're not lies. You simply don't seem to like it when I point out that your 'I'm not playing' posts are poorly disguised last-wording attempts, that's all. But we've tread this ground before, and it's clear you're not going to abandon that effort and actually take the high road you claim to be walking, which would be both simple and easily noticeable.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You need a better hobby bro.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rakeesh...those are bold face lies. Go play with someone else.
Obama...Thanks for trying, but I fully acknowledged the point being made. Samp and Rakeesh are, simply put, two of the most argumentitive right fighters Hatrack has to offer.
I don't really want to wade into this kerfuffle, but I'm not sure you're giving Rakeesh enough credit, Stone_Wolf. (Sorry Samp, I like you and I like your posts, but your posting style is...less easy to defend, I hope you won't take this personally).
I think Rakeesh has posted here enough, and long enough, for him to demonstrate nothing but the best of intentions, and I think it's a bit out of line for you to question his motives. I mean come on, we've all been here for years, we all should respect each other, and there's not a lot of chest beating going on here. I know I respect both of you, no matter what side of an argument we find ourselves on.
Give each other a break.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: A lot of people, depending on where they live and what they look like, would be wise to invest in an automobile DVR. Strangely enough, when you put the cops on camera they tend to get more polite and possess a better recall of what the law is. They definitely don't like that, and have made an effort to make filming police officers illegal, but across the board those efforts have been getting cut down.
My experience suggests that this is NOT true at all. I worked for a State Police Dept. and the vast majority of the officers WANTED cameras in their car. That was my job, installing cameras and other equipment. If one was issued a car without a camera, they usually came straight to the shop and begged us to instal one. Sure there are some bad cops around that wouldn't want one but the majority are good and want the camera for their own protection since false accusations against them are common.
Of course, when the cameras first came out there was a lot of push back. Officers had the same reaction many of us would if our employer wanted to put a camera on us to watch everything we do and micromanage us. They soon realized that the only time anyone looks at the tape is when there is a problem and if they have done their job properly, the tape will back them up in court.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: (Sorry Samp, I like you and I like your posts, but your posting style is...less easy to defend, I hope you won't take this personally).
I don't understand. I'm specifically not deeply engaging with s_w, so I don't know how I'm related to the kerfluffle
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
SW said something about you and Lyr didn't defend your honor.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: A lot of people, depending on where they live and what they look like, would be wise to invest in an automobile DVR. Strangely enough, when you put the cops on camera they tend to get more polite and possess a better recall of what the law is. They definitely don't like that, and have made an effort to make filming police officers illegal, but across the board those efforts have been getting cut down.
My experience suggests that this is NOT true at all. I worked for a State Police Dept. and the vast majority of the officers WANTED cameras in their car. That was my job, installing cameras and other equipment. If one was issued a car without a camera, they usually came straight to the shop and begged us to instal one. Sure there are some bad cops around that wouldn't want one but the majority are good and want the camera for their own protection since false accusations against them are common.
Of course, when the cameras first came out there was a lot of push back. Officers had the same reaction many of us would if our employer wanted to put a camera on us to watch everything we do and micromanage us. They soon realized that the only time anyone looks at the tape is when there is a problem and if they have done their job properly, the tape will back them up in court.
Perhaps, but the reason I suggested an auto DVR is so that when the cop is talking to you through the window, everything he says and does is still recorded. So any lying or intimidation is still recorded, which doesn't happen with a dashboard camera. That's not to mention the many times cops have been accused of something and their dashboard camera had a "malfunction" that day, or the footage was mysteriously "lost."
And there was definitely pushback on a legal level when it came to recording police. In a few states people were having wiretapping charges brought against them.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Perhaps, but the reason I suggested an auto DVR is so that when the cop is talking to you through the window, everything he says and does is still recorded. So any lying or intimidation is still recorded, which doesn't happen with a dashboard camera.
Not true, at least with the systems we used. The officer has a radio mic on his shoulder and the camera records that feed. Everything the officer says or hears within a mile or so of the car goes on the tape (or more recently hard drive). The tape or hard drive is in a locked box in the trunk. We had keys in the shop, the duty sgt. and the captain had keys. The officers usually did not.
Of course, it isn't foolproof. The officer does have record and playback controls so if he intends to do something bad, all he has to do is hit stop. Though it would raise a lot of questions if a complaint came in and there was no recording during that time.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
That's definitely more secure then I expected. That still means you have to trust the captain and the sergeant both to be willing to cross the "blue line" when necessary, though. There have definitely been cases where recordings were mysteriously "lost" and of course, in such cases the cop always walks free.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: SW said something about you and Lyr didn't defend your honor.
'rally the troops, stone wolf just namedropped'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i want cameras on cops literally all the time on active duty
and, while many precincts don't understand this yet, they do too Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: That's definitely more secure then I expected. That still means you have to trust the captain and the sergeant both to be willing to cross the "blue line" when necessary, though. There have definitely been cases where recordings were mysteriously "lost" and of course, in such cases the cop always walks free.
I can't speak for every PD and I'm sure local PDs and Sheriffs are a whole different ball game but in the case of the state I worked at, they took complaints and incidents very seriously. I can't tell you how many times IA accompanied by a lawyer have come to us in the shop to pull a tape from a particular car. Most of the time, the tape exonerates the officer.
Then there is my favorite case. An officer straight out of the academy wrecked his car on the fourth day of the job. He claimed someone ran him off the road and no one had as yet questioned his account. We got the wreck in the shop and started stripping all the gear so it could be auctioned off. While pulling the camera, I noticed the tape was still in it so out of curiosity, I popped it in a vcr to see if it recorded the wreck. It sure did. The guy was driving like a madman, hooting and hollering at the top of his lungs like he was straight out of the Dukes of Hazard. He lost control all on his own, swerved off the road and slammed a telephone pole. The whole shop came over to see it and we all laughed our asses off.
The shop supervisor obviously figured this was something the Captain would want to see so he called him down to the shop. Now the Captain was one of the nicest and funniest guys you would ever hope to meet, always had a joke and a smile for anything. He never said a word watching the tape. It's the only time I have ever seen a scowl on his face. He pulled the tape and headed back to the office silently. That officer was never seen again. Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i want cameras on cops literally all the time on active duty
and, while many precincts don't understand this yet, they do too
Yep. Like I said, most of the ones I worked with demanded cameras.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The problem is that sometimes the camera doesn't catch everything, or makes it look worse than it really was at the time. But even with that in mind, every officer I work with (I work at the jail) all prefer having the cameras in every area allowed.
It is FAR more likely that an inmate will lie about abuse than it is for an officer to actually abuse someone, so that camera has actually SAVED more officers than it has condemned, by far.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Well, at least we can all agree that there need to be cameras on cops at all times.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
The answer to the request in this thread title appears a little more likely to be "perhaps the verdict wasn't correct."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Given that the verdict must fit the trial rather than some abstract truth, the verdict was correct. But I take it you mean this seems to indicate Zimmerman likely did it.
*shrug* It does make him look bad, and I felt his story was self-serving bullshit that served to illustrate how dangerous and stupid it really is for stupid people such as Zimmerman to be allowed to roam the streets with a gun, looking for crime. But I don't see how this case, such as it is so far, should rationally lead anyone to conclude much about Martin's death.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Yeah. He could write an editorial titled, "I killed Trayon Martin, and I got away with it." and it wouldn't actually change the verdict the jury should have reached.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Given that the verdict must fit the trial rather than some abstract truth, the verdict was correct. But I take it you mean this seems to indicate Zimmerman likely did it.
What do you mean by "did it"? Nobody disputes the fact that Zimmermann shot Martin. The question is whether it was self defense, which is a legal question and not a factual one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
By 'did it' I meant something closer to 'deliberately picked, followed, and then started or goaded into a fight' rather than the physical act of shooting and killing Martin.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Given that the verdict must fit the trial rather than some abstract truth, the verdict was correct. But I take it you mean this seems to indicate Zimmerman likely did it.
*shrug* It does make him look bad, and I felt his story was self-serving bullshit that served to illustrate how dangerous and stupid it really is for stupid people such as Zimmerman to be allowed to roam the streets with a gun, looking for crime. But I don't see how this case, such as it is so far, should rationally lead anyone to conclude much about Martin's death.
Yes, I agree, on the legal question the verdict was the way it should be. But the fault for Trayvon's death lies squarely on Zimmerman, whether or not he legally acted in self defense. As you said, without someone like Zimmerman running about as an armed vigilante, Trayvon would not be dead. This most recent revelation on Zimmerman makes me question whether he was "ambushed" by Trayvon in their final altercation. I wouldn't be surprised if Zimmerman was actually the aggressor who chased down Martin and jumped him, physically starting the fight. Then Zimmerman started screaming for help when he got on the losing end, and ultimately fired the killing shot. If that is the case, wouldn't the proper verdict have been manslaughter or negligent homicide or something akin to that? We can never know for certain who really started the fight. Thus reasonable doubt requires a 'not guilty' verdict. I'm just saying this latest news diminishes the "reasonable" part of reasonable doubt.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
zimmerman has served a pretty valuable service, post-trayvonning, of being sort of an easy racism dowsing rod of an issue
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
this is amazing. he barricaded himself in her house.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Zimmerman had every much as right to be at that sidewalk as Martin did. That's NOT saying the same thing as saying he is bight, or shows good judgement.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Zimmerman had every much as right to be at that sidewalk as Martin did. That's NOT saying the same thing as saying he is bight, or shows good judgement.
It's a shame that Zimmerman didn't, you know, recognize that Martin had a right to be on that sidewalk without being followed with gun, accosted, pre-convicted of a crime, etc.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Zimmerman had every much as right to be at that sidewalk as Martin did. That's NOT saying the same thing as saying he is bight, or shows good judgement.
Which is sort of besides the point, isn't it?
Since the original incident, he's been arrested for assaulting his girlfriend and drawing a gun on her. He was also accused by his ex-wife of threatening her with a firearm.
Do neither of these things make you at all doubtful of his original story in the Martin shooting?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I suppose we might hear all about how they shouldn't make us begin to question his honesty.
Lying in court and attempting to hide money wasn't enough for some people to stomach questioning Zimmerman's integrity, after all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Zimmerman had every much as right to be at that sidewalk as Martin did. That's NOT saying the same thing as saying he is bight, or shows good judgement.
It's a shame that Zimmerman didn't, you know, recognize that Martin had a right to be on that sidewalk without being followed with gun, accosted, pre-convicted of a crime, etc.
'those assholes always get away' said zimmerman obviously in the spirit of 'this man has just as much a right to be here as me'
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)