Credit where credit’s due - black unemployment hit record lows.
You’re doing it again. You’re makinf up bullshit claims for no reason but to support your own odd view of the world.
Who in this thread–heck, who on this board–has ever claimed that all or most or even a large plurality of tickets handed out to black drivers are the result of targeting?
You invent bullshit and then want to pretend that you have apoint?
Being victimized by racism and acknowledgement that it exists are mutually exclusive, unless of course you are in denial.
It’s been proven that blacks have been targeted for stops simply because they were black.
Despite you having mixed race children, oodles of black friends, etc, you seem to not have a clue about what is being talked about here.
Take a deep breath, tomndebb.
I don’t believe for a moment you’re as nuanced challenged as you come across. My claim is this:
Racism is over-stated, over-reported and exaggertated, often by sincere but misinformed or misguided people, and other times by charlatans. There is no better example than the “Driving while Black” bologna.
Now I’ve made that claim with seriousness and good faith. I trust that people are smart enough to see sarcasm, parody and even caricature when it’s employed, as in the case of you with the face’s hypothetical traffic stop.
Even the “Berlin 1946” caricature, as any caricature, has at it’s core a representation of the underlying image; to wit:
-
The posters have consistently treated the claim, “Racism is over-reported, and Institutional racism doesn’t exist. (while racism certainly does)” as tantamount to “You don’t believe racism exists”, “You don’t believe it ever existed” or the dowright juvenile, “opinions about how slavery wasn’t all that bad.”
-
Going off point—and often—is standard operating procedures.
-
The posters have no perception between the past and present and can’t tell the difference. This manifests itself , in that example–by not being able to understand that the ravages of war are not the war, and a city is in ruins doesn’t mean that a fight is still going on. There is a fundamental difference between racism, and the effects of racism, and I don’t think the average poster knows the difference.
So save your faux rage and indignation. I ain’t buyin.
Personally I’ve bowed out of this thread, as the raindog is simply spouting whatever comes to his or her mind and not addressing the question (or OP, for that matter). But I am moving from indignation to amusement with each post.
And the proof you’ve offered of all this is “I don’t believe any evidence to the contrary.” Sorry, raindog, but that’s not sufficient proof for the rest of us.
Again, your proof that “racism is over-reported” is nothing more than your opinion unsupported by any real evidence and your proof that “institutional racism” doesn’t exist was redefining the term into non-existence. And the person who has done the most redefining of words and paraphrasing of other people’s statements in this thread has been you.
It’s actually a difference so subtle that it may, in fact, not even exist.
Actually, you said several things in this post that I’d like to talk about, and found some common ground in some of your words. I will respond to those tomorrow.
To be clear, the term is not used the same way by everybody, or accepted as valid or legitimate by everybody.
The definitions I used were from Miriam Webster. Your’s originate with The Black Panthers, hardly an unbiased, objective source. Perhaps you’re smarting that I put some perspective into the [uncited] comment,* “That is how the phrase was coined and that is how it has been used for 40 years…” *
Forty years of use among a limited group of zealots doesn’t change it’s source or it’s dubiousness. If I tore a page out of the Aryan Nation Handbook and tried to gain some currency with it by stating it had been in use for 40 years, I’d be concerned that someone might call me on it.
You used the definition of racism by a violent racial separatist, and now we’ve gone from “…and that is how it has been used for 40 years…” to …“…used by a lot of different people for the past 40 years…” Forgive me if I’m reluctant to take instruction from Stokely Carmichael.
Lurkers, pay attention. Here’s what I said about Mr. Carmichael:
“… …it was coined by black nationalist, pan-Africanist and honorary prime minister of the Black Panther Party, Stokely Carmichael…” ** (<– a direct cut and paste wikipedia quote)**…“… Sounds like there might be an agenda here?…”, and, …" tomnebb’s definition is foreign to me (and most others uninclined to see Mr. Carmichael as unbiased) I still would use it to discuss this; even though it seeks to artificially amplify the nature and pervasiveness of racism in America…", and, "…Surely tomndebb doesn’t think that his and Mr. Carmichael’s interpretion of “Institute” or “Institutional” within the context of racism doesn’t invalidate the more common and accepted use of the word…"
Anybody see any slurring going on? me neither. How about calling Mr Carmichael a terrible person? me neither.
Here’s what I said about SNCC, an organization he belonged to, "…(Wiki on Black Panters ,Stokely Carmichael, and if you really want to see how we went from King’s message to the Victim Class and the race baiting we see today, see the evolution of Carmichaels’s group, SNCC )…
Read the wiki links on Carmichael, the Black Panthers, and SNCC and let me know if I was hard on Carmichael, or too kind.
While both SNCC and Stokley Carmichael initially had auspicious beginnings and laudable goals, in fairly short order he became a racist separatist and advocated violence. He became no better than Tom Metzger of the Aryan Nation. Without a doubt, I would not have wanted either man anywhere near my children.
To give some perspective on the civil rights era and it’s evolution, I strongly encourage everyone to read the wiki links. There is also a fantastic book (although it’s been 20 years since I read it) by Taylor Branch, Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954-1963
I am not the one who is “nuance challenged.” You are the one who takes some odd personal lack of belief of events that have been pretty well documented (as I have already presented in this thread) and simply hand-waved away any evidence.
You are the one who has taken any assertion of any type of racism, however mildly expressed in whatever conditionally buffered language it is couched and misquoted it back as some sort of absolutist doctrine of the most extreme sort.
I have no faux rage. I have a certain amount of frustration having to deal with a poster who has built his entire argument on nothing more than attributing false claims to my position.
Are there people who have overstated the case of racism in the U.S., today? Sure. The way to refute their claims is not to simply deny all evidence of the racism that does exist while portraying people who hold no such position as if they were among the extreme believers.
Basically, you’ve got nothing but a personal objection to a few blacks “playing the race card” and you are willing to make any bizarre claim to shout them down, even misrepresenting the views of other people who are equally antagonistic to the “race card” players if they do not happen to join you in your own hyperbole. You are even willing to deny evidence by deliberately misrepresenting the posters with whom you are debating along with a lot of handwaving and a bit of semantic sophistry that would not impress a college sophomore.
Now I stated* " The posters have no perception between the past and present and can’t tell the difference."*, to which Little Nemo responded, “It’s actually a difference so subtle that it may, in fact, not even exist.”
Now I’m guessing Little Nemo is not old enough to have seen real-time footage of water hoses—that would strip bark off trees—trained on humans, or brave young people being berated while pouring mustard on them at a Woolworth lunch counter, or Vivian Malone, James Hood and George Wallace at the University of Alabama. But surely you’ve read something or seen it in the History Channel, no?
To suggest that the difference bewteen 1963 and 2007 is “so subtle that it may, in fact, not even exist”, is not just ignorant, it’s juvenile.
Bullshit.
The phrase is more than and different from the constituent parts. You did not look up “institutional racim,” you looked up the constituent words and pretended that the phrase could “only” be understood in that context, separated from its actual usage. Carmichael coined the term, but he does not own it. It has been a part of the national (actually, international) dialogue on race without any support from him for forty years. The fact that you did not say a specific bad thing about him does not change the fact that you were clearly trying to poison the well by ignoring the phrase’s subsequent forty year history and linking the term to his later carerer in the Black Panthers.
Later career? Perhaps you need to cite just when he joined TBP, and when his views radicalized. How 'bout it?
A moment ago you said I was " …actually saying is that if you can rant loudly enough that Mr. Carmichael was a terrble person…" and now you say, …“you did not say a specific bad thing about [Carmichael]…”
I appreciate ther retraction. :dubious:
The truth is, the kindest thing I can say about Carmichael is that you have used a racist, violent racial separatist as the basis of your definition. Mr. Carmichael poisoned his own well.
And so I find your definition to be barely cosmetically different from the simple word racism. But Institutional racism has so much more cache!
Racism is an important topic, and needs rational discussion. Dressing it up as a means of trying to make it look more menacing or pervasive is the hallmark of someone with an agenda. That defines Mr. Carmichael’s career to a “T”.
I retract nothing. You are using the fact that the person who coined the phrase was one of whom you clearly disapprove as an excuse to pretend that the phrase has not been used by scholars and other people seriously addressing the issue of racism.
Institutional racism: Uni\versity of Dayton School of Law
Institutional Racism as addressed by that notable hotbed of racially divisive rhetoric: the City of Seattle
The National Youth Employment Coalition addressing Institutional Racism
Mark Halstead addressing the issue of racism in Britain in a report that includes a description of Institutional Racism
Addressing Institutional Racism in that virulent pocket of the Black Power movement: the University of Leeds, UK
A peer reviewed conference paper on Confronting Institutional Racism from the University of Dayton.
The ACLU addressing Institutional Racism
The Social Science Review Network of Britain addressing Institutional Racism
Institutional racism: Tom Head writing for About.com
Now, I would never claim that just because a number of people have identified, studied, and opposed institutional racism it must be real; they might all be in error.
But I hope we can now drop the absurd canard that it is nothing but a leftover phrase from a 1960s radical that we can ignore simply because the “wrong” person coined it.
Earlier he said that his ex-wife is black.
Offered without comment.
If you have no comment, then you should probably not offer the information. If you are drawing a conclusion, then you should express the conclusion and the way that you arrived at it. If you are not drawing a conclusion, then the point is irrelevant. Unless you have pertinent information regarding the dissolution of the marriage, that sort of personal information is really irrelevant to the discussion. His divorce would not change the status of his children, for example.
Your streak of being wrong remains unbroken.
I am old enough to remember 1963. And I am certain I know history a lot better than you do.
And the argument that “lynching ain’t so bad, we use to enslave them - water hoses ain’t so bad, we use to lynch them - beating them up ain’t so bad, we use to turn water hoses on them” gets a little weak after the first few repetitions. Nobody is claiming that racism didn’t used to be worse. But it didn’t get better because people said things were good enough. It’s easy to condemn past generations for what they did - the hard work is fixing the things that are still wrong now.
As for my comment on a difference being too subtle to exist, I was referring to your statement “There is a fundamental difference between racism, and the effects of racism, and I don’t think the average poster knows the difference.” What exactly do you feel the fundamental difference is between racism itself and the effects of racism?
Then don’t lead us to conclude otherwise.
He offered the information, tom. I was just repeating it.
Look, I’m not trying to junior mod here, but perhaps it’s time you moved this thread to the Pit. I’m tired of the raindog cherry-picking the things he responds to, using my name in his stupid make-believe dialogues, and suggesting things about my attitude that aren’t in evidence in anything that I’ve written.
This kind of behavior is not fit for GD and neither are the responses that he deserves.
You’re free to open a Pit thread with a link. That way, you could express your ire without making all the posters who have not opened this thread wade through the first six pages to get to the exciting parts.
I don’t think the raindog is worth Pitting. I suggested moving it only because the tone of the thread has Pit-like overtones.
Guess I’ll just bow out like Hippy Hollow.
The only thing the Pit offers you is the ability to engage in name calling, the last refuge of the tired mind.