This post about sums it up. White cops are racist until proven innocent and it’s impossible to prove them innocent. Any situation between a white person and black person must be viewed through the lens of racism. That is the biggest change between the beginning of Obama’s presidency and today. We are hyper-racialized today to the point where a year of the monkey t-shirt brings offense because it happens to coincide with black history month. Of course, Obama is not to blame for that, but certainly his handling of events like the Gates controversy didn’t help.
I didn’t say this and I don’t believe this. I guess you don’t believe there can be nuanced discussion on these issues. That’s a shame.
100%, hunh? The chance that the 911 caller was influenced by Gates’ skin color is … Zero! The chance that the cop’s egregious response was influenced by skin color is … Zero!!
Your uncanny ability to know the unknowable is truly awe-inspiring! Can you open a thread, please, to give us some stock tips? What about Riemann’s Hypothesis? Is there balm in Gilead?
Can you please explain how you get from that sentence to your conclusion? This is one of those things that I’ve heard or read from time to time that I can’t quite understand. For some reason that statement seems to provoke a kind of visceral negative response and I would appreciate if someone could explain why. To me, it is a very neutral statement - so I must be missing something.
That’s an exaggeration, but it’s still probably a more realistic approach than pretending that any situation between a white person and a black person must be presumed to be entirely free of racism unless an obvious and explicit form of racism appears in it.
What the Obama presidency taught us is how persistent and pervasive white racism still is in America. It’s just that nowadays a lot of white people think that what they do or say shouldn’t count as racist if they claim they’re not racist. (Witness, for example, the seller of the infamous “Don’t Re-Nig in 2012” bumper sticker and the author of the “ape in heels” remark about Michelle Obama, both of whom stoutly denied that they had used a racist expression.)
Check the sarcasm:
It’s 100% certain that race did not influence her because she could not identify the race of the suspect.
Barack Obama’s comments need to be evaluated in the larger context of history. Sure, Obama’s response to a reporter’s question could have been parsed more carefully so as not to arouse suspicions among whites that he’s a kinder, gentler Louis Farrakhan. But the idea that his remarks on Gates’ arrest or Trayvon Martin reversed racial progress in this country is utterly absurd. It might have been politically risky in terms of courting the white vote to come out and comment, but to remain silent would have rendered him a fraud in the eyes who were looking to someone to provide a moral compass and some leadership.
Obama’s remarks were controversial only to people who are uncomfortable talking about the legacy and impact of white racism. And on that note, I’ll point out the obvious and say sorry, but just voting for a black guy for president doesn’t wave the magic wand that makes racism disappear; racism is as much a social and economic problem within society itself as it is a political problem. In fact, the politics in dealing with racism is ahead of society in this regard. We have laws against racial discrimination, but a lot of people who have power and influence in society still don’t accept non-whites as their equals and many others are still unsure as to the extent they feel comfortable living and working among non-whites. In the long run, in the grander scheme of things, the greater good is served by having the black president possess the courage to confront issues of race head on. Obama didn’t say cops are racist; he’s simply pointing out that the equal protection clause of the constitution has been inconsistently applied. And he’s absolutely right. But a lot of people believe that having a black man (actually a biracial man) as president absolves us of our collective sins. That’s naive and counter-productive thinking because it favors a filtered perceived reality over the reality based on historical facts and what happens every day even now.
And it’s 100% certain that race didn’t influence the way the officer responded to Gates?
But those remarks – what, you think rushing in to declare that the police acted stupidly is providing a moral compass? You think that making quick mention of how his hypothetical son would have looked like Trayvon somehow converts an otherwise inadequate statement into one that now gains a moral compass?
I just don’t see it.
Again, nicely illustrating the change. Racist until proven innocent.
Quite to the contrary, it was anything but neutral. The comment was implying that Obama felt more of a personal connection, or that there were more personal implications involved in the case, because Trayvon Martin shared the same race as his. I’m not sure how it can be interpreted any other way.
What? Why do you keep answering straw men? This has nothing to do with anything I said.
If you don’t want to engage my actual words, then that’s a shame, and I’ll stop putting effort into trying to honestly engage with you.
Yes, it’s showing a moral compass by talking about it and representing a black man’s perspective from the bully pulpit of the highest office of the land, even while knowing that your re-election before November 2012 and political legitimacy afterward still very much depend on impressing white people. People talk about being president for all people a lot but it’s probably a misunderstood concept. Historically speaking, most presidents haven’t been presidents for all people. Barack Obama is probably one president more than any other who has come the closest to fitting that description. And being a president for all people means helping an ethnic majority understand the perspectives of people who have been historically the subject of mistreatment. It has nothing to do with being PC, microaggressions, or safe spaces.
Ok. I don’t expect everyone to, and I don’t really care.
What? That makes no sense. Just because the caller didn’t explicitly mention anything about the race of the “suspicious intruders”, and perhaps could not tell at all what race they were, absolutely does not make it “100% certain that race did not influence her”.
For example, it’s perfectly possible that she was more nervous about the intruders because she thought they might be black, and would have been more reassured if she had seen two obviously white guys instead. That’s an example of race still influencing her reactions even if the racial identity of the persons she saw wasn’t clear to her.
Racist views about black people most definitely do influence the behavior of many white people even in situations with people they think might be black, not just in situations with people they know are black.
Of course, we can’t be sure that the caller was influenced by the issue of race, but it’s completely false to claim that “it’s 100% certain” that she was not. It isn’t certain at all.
Spectacularly projected. Let’s change a few key words…
When it comes to stirring up fear and hatred amongst their supporters, the Democrats are pikers compared to the vast ratfucking machinery of the right.
DISPATCH: Were they white, black, or Hispanic?
CALLER: Uhm, well they were two larger men. One looked kind of Hispanic but I’m not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn’t see what he looked like at all.
So how are you 100% certain that race had no influence on the way the officer treated Gates?
Again, I’m not stating that it did. I’m just asking how you’re so certain that it did not. I’m not sure if race had anything to do with how the officer treated Gates, because I’m unable to read minds.
Cosigning. Amen. QFT.
You obviously missed the point that he was making, if this is what you inferred.
Trayvon was profiled as a thug because he was inarguably viewed through a racially bias lens. A black teenaged male wearing a hoodie on a dark, rainy night automatically “looks” up to no good to a large swath of the American public, including the dangerous idiot who shot him. Obama stated that Trayvon looked no differently than his own hypothetical son to make the point that nothing about the kid’s appearance warranted stalking and then killing him. He looked like millions of innocent teenaged boys across the country.
If you disagree with this point, fine. But its laughable to portray his comments as implying he only cared about victims who looked like Trayvon.
treis, nothing you posted in any way contradicts anything I said. Just because you are not sure what race somebody is does not make it certain that race is having no influence on the way you respond to that person.
If you see somebody on the street at night and can’t tell what race they are, and you feel a little more nervous because they might be black but would feel reassured if you knew they were white, then race is influencing your reaction to that person. Even though you don’t know what race they are.
Racial bias doesn’t exist in some kind of cryogenic suspension requiring you to push the “race successfully detected” button in order to activate it.
I am kind of surprised this appears so hard for you to grasp.
I’m feeling the same way. He said one looked kind of Hispanic and the other he didn’t see what he looked like at all. The obvious conclusion to draw here is that the person he didn’t see was Gates and the person he did see was his driver, who was Hispanic.