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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
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.)
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW said something about you and Lyr didn't defend your honor.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
