Of course, this is also problematic. While I think we’ll all agree it’s true, the reasons for it can come from a few things:
Do Blacks and Whites commit crimes in proportion to their percentages in society, but Blacks go to jail more because of racist police and judges?
Do Blacks commit crimes out of proportion to their percentage in society and therefore they go to jail more because neutral police and judges are simply apprehending the perpetrators of crime?
A mixture of above? Blacks, as a group, commit more crimes proportionately and police and the court system are somewhat stacked against them.
My point was that the Republican Party as an organization truckles to racists. They do it deliberately, as a strategy to attract racist voters in the Deep South. When you vote for and support Republicans, you are supporting members of an organization that supports racists, and by extension, racism.
Republicans do many other things and have many other interests, but they definitely have a racist base they truckle to, however covertly.
Renob I don’t know how you could answer that…if the police decide to “profile” blacks and ignore other drivers, then the amount of arrests will skew towards blacks committing more crime. If the Police decide that crack or herion is more dangerous than Meth, weed or X, then the amount of arrests will skew more towards blacks, rinse and repeat. That’s before we even reach the DA, Judge and Jury, which may add their own bias into the mix.
I’ll give you that there are certain racist Republicans and that there are many things Republicans support that racists support, also. However, it is a leap to say that the organized Republican Party is supporting racists and racism. If certain racists vote for the party, there is little they can do to stop that. Should they repudiate their solid stands on affirmative action, for instance, just because some nuts agree with them? In certain cases the Repblican Party has condemned racists, like David Duke, and said that it wants nothing to do with them (which is more than Democrats have done to Black racists like Al Sharpton).
I actually had to look it up as well…its not an english word I’m familiar with. Here is what I found:
“A small wheel or roller; a caster.”
“To be servile or submissive. See Synonyms at fawn1.”
I assume its the second definition thats being used in this context. So…I’m unsure how the Republicans have a ‘servile or submissive’ racial agenda (or act as a wheel, roller or caster for one). Is there any proof besides being opposed to AA that indicates that Republicans, as a group, have such an agenda. Or is it too hidden to actually detect?
I’ll just drop the implication (well, how I read it) that anyone opposing AA is a racist. I’m just curious about this racial agenda and truckling (is that correct?) to racists.
I agree that there are certain laws (like the drug laws) that disproportionately affect one racial group above another. However, it also has to be realized that “profiling” is a tool that police use because it works. There is a certain type of driver that will likely be carrying drugs up and down I-95. Only very rarely will it be the white guy and his wife and three kids driving the min-van. Police use profiling because it works, even if it is often unfair.
It depends on the drugs, do you think urban African-Americans are carrying Meth? I promise you that white guy and his wife and three kids in his mini-van has more of a chance to be carrying meth or pot or any of the pretty white boy designer drugs, than that certain type of driver.
Further I have no idea how anyone can allow a law/practice that they realize is unfair to remain in practice…you either believe in equal treatment under the law or you don’t. Every black person doesn’t deserve to be a suspect, you wouldn’t tolerate it if you was your brother, father, mother, why would tolerate someone’s elses?
No, the core difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Republicans are the slavish devotees of the wealthy, and the Democrats will occasionally help out the poor and the middle class while tending to the needs of their wealthy donors. All other differences are minor by comparison.
True, but on I-95 I don’t think they have as big a problem smuggling meth as they do coke. Where I come from, however, it’s just the opposite. And who is being profiled there – young white males who dress a certain way.
It’s not quite as simple as that. Let me just say that I don’t even believe in drug laws so I’d wipe them all off the books if I could.
However, on profiling, while it may be unfair it is an effective crime fighting weapon. Let’s take the example of the Giant grocery store I go to. It’s well known for being one of the most victimized stores in terms of shoplifting. Who does the majority of shoplifting there? Young black males. It makes sense for security to watch people matching that description (especially if they are wearing baggy clothes). It makes little sense for them to closely scrutinize the elderly Asian lady. Sure, it’s unfair for the majority of young black males who don’t shoplift, but should the store give up on effective crime supression measures and lose business in order to satisfy a vague sense of fairness?
There are a lot of intolerable things in this world. Racism is one, high crime is another.
My brother-in-law is a young black male. Sometimes the world is shitty and I suspect he’s going to find that out very quickly.
** Renob** There is a difference between observation and interference. If your security watches a certain profile, young male w/baggy clothes that’s one thing, UNTIL they commit a crime. It’s entirely different to stop each and every black person regardless of age, sex, and dress; search them when they enter and search them when they leave. You must see that.
And while the world is unfair, the law MUST BE fair, or it’s tyranny. While your brother in law, may get some shitty breaks, it’s different when the shitty breaks come from the government.
As for ‘racial profiling’, it depends on where you are in the country as to which group is profiled. Here in New Mexico I can assure you that blacks are not profiled afaik. Hispanic/indian (i.e. Native American) males though ARE. I’ve been pulled over quite a few times myself (hispanic male in an expensive car), and even had my car searched when I was way down in southern New Mexico (i.e. near the border)…ironically BY hispanic/indian male police officers. As I was not carrying either drugs or a trunk full of illegals I was basically let go with an appology. Was I happy about it? Hell now…the time I was searched I was pretty pissed off. However, as most of the crimes committed in this state are by hispanic males, I can certainly see why the police would keep a special eye out for that group.
Religious republicans and religious blacks have very different value systems and different beliefs. While they may agree (for the most part) on gay issues and the death penalty, there are a number of other issues in which the two groups disagree.
I don’t think blacks are in favor of the family values Republicans advocate anymore than what Democrats advocate. What are you basing this on?
Blacks do not agree with Republicans on morals. That’s why Blacks started voting Democrat long ago. The GOP caters to racists, and Black people know that. If that’s not moral disagreement, I don’t know what is.
Financially, Blacks probably agree with Democrats, but to claim all financial issues revolve around poverty is ridiculous and insulting. That’s what you implied, and that’s what I have a problem with. Either way, blacks do not agree with the Republican party on most things.
You don’t know many black people do you? Your backpedaling is embarrassing. You said a black issues are “issues about the projects”. You think that is in anyway equivalent to saying blacks care about financial issues? You made a stupid remark and now you are trying to soften it.
And yet, Republicans often deny such problems exist in spite of the evidence. The people I’m talking about aren’t color blind.
I’m sure many in the GOP are like that, but many aren’t, and the party leadership has no problem with that.
It’s not just how you interpret evidence, it’s your value system. Most Black Republicans I know don’t highly value the concerns of the Black community. In addition, most of the prominent ones in the media spend most of their time attacking black leaders and trying to get rid of programs that black people feel help the black community. It would be different if people like J.C. Watts or Larry Elder spoke about all the conservative issues like others like Sean Hannity. I disagree with them, but I wouldn’t begrudge them their opinion.
What bothers me is that many of these guys spend most of their time castigating black people for being lazy, trying to get rid of social programs, and Affirmative action, etc. While all of those things have been argued by non-black conservatives, they usually don’t do it to the exclusion of all other things.
Larry Elder has a show on TV and a radio show. The broad theme of his shows is personal responsibility. Something I can agree with. However, when you listen to him speak, the majority of his scorn and ridicule is directed at black people. While there are certainly many black people who deserve a tongue lashing, he does so with too much venom and glee. I’ll hear him talk about welfare, and not mention corporate welfare. The people who I think are sell-outs use their blackness and their contrarian positions to advance themselves.
No, it does not.
Not once have I claimed the sell-outs I speak of weren’t rational, intelligent people. I said I question many of their motives. That’s not racism, that’s listening to what they say, and making an objective appraisal.
I do see that. However, I don’t know of any profiling cases that are what you describe. The cases people complain about are never a blanket “search every black person regardless of age, sex, and dress.” It’s usually a case of apply high scrutiny to young black males, especially those dressed in certain ways.
Hell, everyone gets treated unfairly by the government. Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians how unfairly they got treated. They were, overall, white. I agree we should try and limit the unfairness commited by government, but it’s always going to be with us.
I disagree that the laws are unfair. Perhaps the ENFORCEMENT is not exactly ‘fair’, especially to whatever racial group is being more closely scrutinized due to higher levels of crime by other members of that group, but the laws themselves? I think you are grossly overstating the case here with reguards to racial profiling…at least in my direct experience of having it done to me.
Most serial rapists and serial killers are white males…do we see the routine and random stops of all white males? Aren’t the lives of people just as important as drugs? How many rapes and murders would we stop, if we pulled over every white man and searched their cars?
I’m not talking about when a high-profile case catches the media…I mean right now, today. If profiling is based on the MO of the race of criminals, then we should be seeing lots of white guys getting their cars searched.
So you are saying you should ignore the evidence about the negative effects of government anti-poverty programs because your value system tells you to do so?
So if these people think that Black leaders are charlatans who are mainly interested in enriching themselves by using racial politics (and there is much evidence that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are) and that federal programs hurt Blacks, then these people should be silent? Why should they be quiet if they happen to disagree with you? Are you saying Blacks can only have one opinion on a subject? That sounds pretty racist.
Perhaps they feel the need to actually focus on their community. At first you say these people aren’t paying attention to the Black community, and then you castigate them for directig their comments at it.
No, that is racism when you say that a white person can hold a view but you automatically suspect a black person who holds the same view. You are failing to recognize each person as an individual and you are instead judging them on their skin color.
Well, I can certainly appreciate the cynicism–but you going to debate something here? If you want me to sit here and argue against you until you’re convinced or bored to death, I have infinite patience.
Ignoring blatant silliness isn’t something I prefer to do–so I do mean it with complete honesty, I will gladly respond with as much factual information as I can find if you have any interest in getting a realistic view of beliefs others hold that contend with your own.
Look at all the men brought in for questioning during the Green River killing in Washington State. All white men. During the D.C. sniper investigation there is evidence that the police may have lost a few chances to catch the killers because they were concentrating on finding a white man. Profiling works both ways.
Well, since you don’t carry a murder victim in your car as often as you carry drugs in your car, I fail to see how this would be an effective way of doing police work.
**EC **is using it as a synonym for “pander”, which appears to be incorrect.