The New Face of Racism.

[tomndebb]

@the raindog

If you say so. I suspect it makes you feel good to know you hold the [perceived] moral high ground. But you are not honoring the civil rights movement by perpetuating the AA as a perpetual victim, or the caucasion as a devil. It’s time to let go of the nonsense.

Again you read an awful lot into what I have posted that has nothing to do with what I have said or believe. I have not made any claim that blacks are perpetual victims and I have absolutely never made any claim (or held any thought) that comes close to your “caucasian as a devil” caricature of someone else’s position.

@the raindog

I know you too well to think you’re being disengenuous. But you can’t be serious.

Blackwell, was extremely well respected in the Ohio Republican party. He was a conservative darling, for Pete’s sake! Conservatives, and the Christian right were agog over him, and I know of several churches that were in full overdrive to elect the guy. He was previously elected to State wide office and was extremely well respected. Yet he ran as a conservative Republican with an incumbent Republican that was arguably the worst Governor in the United States. Voters in Ohio couldn’t tell who was held in greater derision, Bush or Taft.
Ohioans were/are absolutely fed up with Taft, his absolute incompetence and ethical lapses. **Ronald Reagan would have had a hard time following Taft into the Governor’s mansion. ** But Tom, you keep on believeing that Blackwell was done in by Republcans who would have preferred a left leaning Democrat over a black Republican.

Again, you attribute to me things I have not said. Blackwell was, indeed, a darling of the (extreme) Right with a significant amount of potential support from even the Republican center. While Taft certainly had something to do with getting Strickland (aka Taft as Democrat) elected, the fact remains that there was a significant number of people who explicitly refused to vote for Blackwell because of his race. I actually made no statement regarding whether his race caused him to lose the election. My observation was only that a very large number of voters based their choice on his race.

[tomndebb]

@Chief Pedant

I am unclear as to why you make an inference that I suggested past and current wrongs would be righted simply because arguing about racism goes away. This would be like me suggesting that an amputee from an unjust war would get his leg back because we got rid of arguing about unjust wars, and I am not suggesting that.

So how do we remove current wrongs by eliminating them from the discussion? Forget slavery and Jim Crow. People, today, are being denied housing and jobs because of their race. In what way does refusing to talk about that remedy the situation?

[raindog]

I watched with some fascination the issue of “racial profiling” in the aftermath of 9/11. In the [well intentioned] plan to not practice discrimination, the TSA routinely searched 6 year old girls, Senators, and Jewish great-grandmothers. Lest we offend either the Muslim community, or any of the Feeling Class, the process had to be entirely random. (save for some statistical models, like those without luggage, or paying cash, etc)

In due time a hue and cry arose because of the sheer lunacy of it all. Interestingly enough, I saw interviews with AAs who advocated racial profiling. [in this context] If the experience with terrorists is such that they are overwhelming young Arab men, from certain countries, common sense would require that these observations be taken into acount [within reason] when seeking to prevent crime.

Similarly, if the overwhelming amount of crime in a particular neighborhood is committed by people sharing similar characteristics, it would stand to reason that law enforcement would focus their efforts appropriately.

Now don’t get me wrong…I believe that “Driving while Black” traffic stops actually happen, and fall into 3 basic categories:

1) An absolutely appropriate use of “profiling”; an effort in which a police officer (which in many cases will be a black officer) uses empirical data and common sense observation to stop a car where the likelihood of crime is higher. If the neighborhood crime wave is beiong orchestrated by young men in low riders with 20 inch rims and metallic paint jobs, I’d say it is an entirely appropriate use of police discretion. It matters not whether they are male/female, Black, Hispanic or White. Police should follow the facts. (FTR: I am no fan of the police as a general rule. I am deeply suspicious of authority in general, and I believe that any police force must be governed by a vigilant civilian body)

2) An absolutely inappropriate use of “profiling”; an effort by a rogue officer who is expressing his racial views and harrassing someone, usually an AA. (although other minorities are abused as well) Does this represent the majority of most traffic stops where the driver/occupants are black? I say" Nonsense." Do these rogue cops represent the majority of the police force in any city of any size; enough so that it can be construed as a ‘defacto’ policy, and therefore implicit institutionalized racism? I say, “Bigger Nonsense.”

3) Where no profiling was done; where a car was stpooed for some [presunmably] valid reason. (and even if invalid, no racial motivation occurred) The problem, of course, is that the cry “Driving while Black!” may still be levied. It has been my experience that this falls into 2 categories:

3a) Where there is a sincere belief that the stop was purely race based. It is my experience that attitudes shown by you with the face, miss elizabeth, monstro, sunrazor, tomndebb and many others reinforce the stereotype that all police officers are racists (see my feelings about the police above) and all AAs are victims. Furthermore, not just this traffic stop, but that job you didn’t get, the poor service at the diner, your recent layoff-----all of it----is evidence of the white man’s hatred for the African American. Just as often however…

3b) The AA knows full well the plates are expired, the 120 db stereo is against sound ordinanaces and the clouds of Jamaican Bud are bound to attract attention. Sure the charge of “racial profiling” or "Driving While Black"is nonsense. But it doesn’t take a genius to figure that there is utility in that nonsense. If Cynthia McKinney has half a brain (a debatable point, I know) she knew full well that that young officer didn’t stop her because she was black. But the race card is just another strategy.

A true story: A few months ago I was in municipal court, in the gallery. This included traffic court. While waiting for the judge, 2 AA men in front of me were talking. I was barely paying attention. My ears perked up when one said to the other, “Dog, just tell 'em you were racially profiled. That’s what I told my lawyer to tell 'em” There wasn’t a hint of irony, or even humor. It was as matter of fact as saying, “Radar guns are not universally reliable.” It was just another strategy.
Every single rogue, racist cop should be relentlessly pursued, reported, prosecuted and hounded. Every Single One. They should be given no protection by the Union, and the the police adminstration should be unwavering in it’s policy of removing racist cops.

But in my view, those who are perpetuating the Cliff and Claire Huxtable in their Prius being stopped on Rodeo Drive by Bull Connor myth are doing more damage to our conciousness than the few racist cops out there.

The work is not done. But it will never be done.

However the war is over. It’s time to see the fruits of those labors, and stop this feel good nonsense (for the whites) and the feel bad nonsense (for the blacks).

[Yookeroo]

@LonesomePolecat

Or perhaps, like most other whites, he’s just tired of being called racist all the time, he’s tired of constantly having to censor every thing he says for fear of being called racist, and he resents his accusers’ arrogant assumption of moral superiority.

I can’t remember that last time I was called racist. It might even be possible I’ve never been called racist. And it ain’t because I’m constantly censoring myself.

Are you tired of being called racist? Why do you think this keeps happening to you?

[tomndebb]

@the raindog

2) An absolutely inappropriate use of “profiling”; an effort by a rogue officer who is expressing his racial views and harrassing someone, usually an AA. (although other minorities are abused as well) Does this represent the majority of most traffic stops where the driver/occupants are black? I say" Nonsense." Do these rogue cops represent the majority of the police force in any city of any size; enough so that it can be construed as a ‘defacto’ policy, and therefore implicit institutionalized racism? I say, “Bigger Nonsense.”

3) Where no profiling was done; where a car was stpooed for some [presunmably] valid reason. (and even if invalid, no racial motivation occurred) The problem, of course, is that the cry “Driving while Black!” may still be levied. It has been my experience that this falls into 2 categories:

3a) Where there is a sincere belief that the stop was purely race based. It is my experience that attitudes shown by you with the face, miss elizabeth, monstro, sunrazor, tomndebb and many others reinforce the stereotype that all police officers are racists (see my feelings about the police above) and all AAs are victims. Furthermore, not just this traffic stop, but that job you didn’t get, the poor service at the diner, your recent layoff-----all of it----is evidence of the white man’s hatred for the African American. Just as often however…

Regardless what your belief regarding point #2 might be, I see it in a quite different way. You claim that it is rogue cops being personally racist. However, you have already acknowledged that (in what you claim are different circumstances) black police are liable to exercise DWB stops, just as white cops will. However, this is exactly what most of us describe as institutional racism. The attitude of the police–regardless of the race of the officer–is that certain black men should not be in certain neighborhoods regardless of their general appearance or the make, model, and year of car they are driving. It is NOT hatred for blacks. It is NOT a rogue attitude. It is simply a belief that has become accepted in the institution of some police departments and is acted upon by most or all of the members of those departments. The majority of DWBs that have been related to me have wound up with the officer thanking the stopped driver for his cooperation and waving him on. The problem was not making the driver assume the position on the hood of his car or ticketing him for bullshit stuff, it was simply deciding that it was OK to interrupt his life for 15 minutes, or so, because the cop wanted to “be sure” that a citizen who was doing nothing more than pursuing his own life, liberty, and happiness was not “really” doing something wrong, based solely on his skin color and the neighborhood through which he was driving.

I have never made any claim that most police officers are racists. Even in terms of bullshit DWB stops, I doubt that most cops are acting out a hatred or deliberate contempt for black men. My guess is that the majority of cops performing DWBs are NOT racists, in that (when they are not black, themselves), they are perfectly OK with sharing a beer or barbecue with their black fellow officers or neighbors or letting their children date people of other races or whatever. I suspect that the reason they perfom DWB stops is simply that the attitude within their departments, within the *institution of American law enforcement, has developed (or inherited) a tradition that rationalizes DWB stops based on the fact that every once in a while they actually catch someone engaged in illegal activity. Confirmation bias then suggests to them that the DWBs aere effective, when the reality is that if they simply stopped every 20th or 100th driver, regardless of race or neighborhood, they would find a similar percentage of people engaged in illegal behaviors.

My point is not that police are racists or evil, it is that if they stopped engaging in DWB, there would be less opportunity for people to believe that they were racist (and they might use the time to engage in practices that would be more effective in catching criminals).

Now, are there blacks who abuse the knowledge that DWB is used in order to challenge legitimate stops? Absolutely. The best way to remove that defense? Stop engaging in DWBs so that it becomes harder to accept the claim.

[monavis]

@Sumisu_919

Let us not confuse racism with prejudice. Let us also not operate as if this country was founded 20 years ago. When I read the statements of the OP it’s clear to me that the OP is not seeing the total picture but also suffers from a lack of empathy because of being(and I’m assuming this) white. Racism is about the notion of one or more “race” or “races” being superior to another but also about having the power to act on the premise i.e. Slavery, Jim Crow, etc.

BTW: There is only one race, and that race is human.

I am with you on this,When I fill out a form that asks for race, I put in human. We are different colors, shapes,etc. but one race,until we all except this prejudice will prevail.

Monavis

[Chief_Pedant]

@tomndebb

So how do we remove current wrongs by eliminating them from the discussion? Forget slavery and Jim Crow. People, today, are being denied housing and jobs because of their race. In what way does refusing to talk about that remedy the situation?

My complaint is not with talking but with arguing; not with conversations about the broad history of inequities per se but with the fixation over black-white inequities in particular selected out from all others with the underlying necessary premise of categorizing who is black and who is white. I do indeed think Mr Farrakhan will shrivel up and blow away if his drivel is ignored. While the Katrina-victim critics you mention may not offer apologies they would certainly be rendered irrelevant and marginalized by refusing to engage them in arguments.

We remove current wrongs by making them illegal and prosecuting violations.

We help to remove the problem by refusing to promote argumentative “discussions.” (I am referring to our individual behaviour; not some sort of official policy here or at a broader level.)

The path to become colorblind is to become colorblind, and to treat everyone with the same indifference to their phenotypes. This path is not aided by constantly raising arguments which depend on promoting color-consciousness for their very existence.

[raindog]

@Little Nemo

In the “White People in Denial” thread I made an analogy about two guys going into an emergency room. One has a toothache and one had his arm torn off by a bear. The staff will all rush over to give their attention to the second guy. That doesn’t mean the first guy doesn’t have an actual medical problem or that they’re prejudiced against him. It’s an acknowledgement that having an arm torn off is a more serious condition then a toothache.

Good analogy, however it sidesteps the central question:

Is it a toothache or is it an arm torn off by a bear? The problem with racism is that it isn’t as neatly indentifiable as the injuries you describe. Again and again and again people are showing up in society’s emergency rooms (as in coffee shope, message boards, talk shows, and the like) with mosquito bites and insisting they’re snake bites. *We’re a nation of hypochondriacs!
*

And that’s how I feel about complaints about white people being the victims of racism. Sure it can happen in some situations. But stop whining about your toothache to the guy who’s missing an arm.

I agree. However, when pressed, quite few of the victim class (and their condescending white patrons) actually have missing arms. Go figure.

Look at the numbers alone. Let’s assume that black people and white people are equally racist as individuals. There are approximately ten times as many white people in this country as there are black people. This means that there are ten white people to be racist towards every black person and only one black person to be racist towards every ten white people. Now do the math - a black person will receive one hundred times as much racism as a white person.

You’re whooshing us, right? :smack:

[buttonjockey308]

@you with the face

But without evidence of such, you’re left with nothing but speculation and fantasy. What reason do you have for distrusting the cops’ conclusion in this case, anyway?

If the races in this crime were swapped, what would be your response to a black person yelling HATE CRIME!!! in the absence of facts that point in that direction? I have a strong hunch that you’d roll your eyes at them and come up with a list of reasons for why they are wrong and irrational.

As I said earlier, the ability to prove any crime a hate crime is mostly subjective anyway. Absent the observed yelling of racial slurs, the display of racist garb or paraphenalia or the admission that the crime was motivated by hate (I killed x because he or she was y). Hate crimes are all but impossible to prove. Here again, the methods by which these people were first tortured and THEN murdered reveals much about the motivation of the crime itself.

If the races were reversed, I would (and perhaps wrongly based on my own information and experience) assume automatically that the crime fits neatly in the spectrum of what is considered a hate crime. It sounds like a hate crime, it looks like a hate crime, and it feels like a hate crime.

With all of that, I don’t believe in the idea of a hate crime. I think increased punishments for a crime that can be aggravated by racial involvement (i.e. assault, murder etc.) would stem, at least to some degree, the tide of cross-racial violence we as a society face. There are laws on the books already that we fail to enforce, and we pile more laws on top of those to further protect one class of people from the thoughts of another class, when in fact, although the protection comes in the form of an incentive NOT to commit the crime, hate crime laws force even further underground those that seek to commit so-called hate crimes. Hate crime laws put a false veneer on the truth of human interaction. Sometimes, people are stupid, and sometimes shit happens that’s motivated by our tadpole brains, for which there is no other motivation other than what the person looks like.

It’s not elegant, it’s not PC, it’s not even right, but it is what it is, and laws will not change that.

[buttonjockey308]

@Miller

Well, yes, but hate crime laws only target hatred of specific classes. It doesn’t matter how hard these guys hated their victims, if they didn’t hate them because of their race or religion (or a few other factors, depending on the jurisdiction) then it’s not a hate crime.

There’s the thing exactly! These two groups likely did not travel in the same circles, (I know I’m making an assumption based on facts not in evidence, but bear with me) therefore it’s possible to believe that they didn’t truly know one another, which removes the potential that one owed the other money etc. They likely were not in business together, which removes an ancillary motive, and there’s good chance that they didn’t attend the same churches, so the religious angle is tenuous at best.

What’s left?

[Slop_Shop]

@Chief Pedant

My complaint is not with talking but with arguing; not with conversations about the broad history of inequities per se but with the fixation over black-white inequities in particular selected out from all others with the underlying necessary premise of categorizing who is black and who is white. I do indeed think Mr Farrakhan will shrivel up and blow away if his drivel is ignored. While the Katrina-victim critics you mention may not offer apologies they would certainly be rendered irrelevant and marginalized by refusing to engage them in arguments.

We remove current wrongs by making them illegal and prosecuting violations.

We help to remove the problem by refusing to promote argumentative “discussions.” (I am referring to our individual behaviour; not some sort of official policy here or at a broader level.)

The path to become colorblind is to become colorblind, and to treat everyone with the same indifference to their phenotypes. This path is not aided by constantly raising arguments which depend on promoting color-consciousness for their very existence.

I completely agree with you. Everyone learns about history in elementary school. History has passed. If you want to get past race issues, you fist must get past these discussions that only serve to reinforce racial divides.

What are things you can do that will actually make a difference?

1. Most importantly, teach your kids to respect and treat everyone as individuals. And they in turn will teach their kids. I think each generation (at least in the generations that I know) have become more and more accepting and progressive in their relations with other people.
2. Please see point number 1. The fact of the matter is that short of going out a killing all racists that currently exist, you are not going to solve the problem in your life time, or even your kid’s life time. Racism is not a quick fix issue. I can see the difference between my grandparents and my parents, and my parents and me, in regards to race issues. My parents taught me to respect people, so I do. And it is not an uncommon belief for people of my generation to treat people as individuals.

That raises another point regarding institutionalized racism. There is no such thing. If no one in the institutions was a racist individual, then there would be no racist institutions. Short of holding a gun to my head and forcing me to do something racist, I am in control of my own actions at all times. If I do something racist, it is on me, not the institution that I work for. Again, it boils down to treating people as individuals. Until we, as a society, start to treat people as individuals, our society is doomed to suffer the same BS that we are discussing in this thread.

[Miller]

@buttonjockey308

There’s the thing exactly! These two groups likely did not travel in the same circles, (I know I’m making an assumption based on facts not in evidence, but bear with me) therefore it’s possible to believe that they didn’t truly know one another, which removes the potential that one owed the other money etc. They likely were not in business together, which removes an ancillary motive, and there’s good chance that they didn’t attend the same churches, so the religious angle is tenuous at best.

What’s left?

Maybe they’re just fucking crazy?

[you_with_the_face]

@the raindog

3a) Where there is a sincere belief that the stop was purely race based. It is my experience that attitudes shown by you with the face, miss elizabeth, monstro, sunrazor, tomndebb and many others reinforce the stereotype that all police officers are racists (see my feelings about the police above) and all AAs are victims.

That’s rather bizarre. When I have said anything about cops?

[Little_Nemo]

Is it a toothache or is it an arm torn off by a bear? The problem with racism is that it isn’t as neatly indentifiable as the injuries you describe. Again and again and again people are showing up in society’s emergency rooms (as in coffee shope, message boards, talk shows, and the like) with mosquito bites and insisting they’re snake bites. We’re a nation of hypochondriacs!

I agree with you in principle. And I’ve certainly seen numerous cases where black people are claiming racism as a cause for a problem when it probably isn’t. But the reverse is equally true in which white people are denying racism as a cause in problems where it probably is.

Look at the numbers alone. Let’s assume that black people and white people are equally racist as individuals. There are approximately ten times as many white people in this country as there are black people. This means that there are ten white people to be racist towards every black person and only one black person to be racist towards every ten white people. Now do the math - a black person will receive one hundred times as much racism as a white person.

You’re whooshing us, right?

No, I’m serious and can you tell me why you disagree with this? If everyone in a society is equally racist as an individual, then the people in the minority will suffer more because of the reasons I gave. If you think otherwise, please explain why what I said isn’t true.

[CJJ]

@Little Nemo

No, I’m serious and can you tell me why you disagree with this? If everyone in a society is equally racist as an individual, then the people in the minority will suffer more because of the reasons I gave. If you think otherwise, please explain why what I said isn’t true.

This argument is ridiculous. Following your logic, if I assume a premise like “everyone in a society is equally charitable-to-other-races as an individual”, then the people in the minority will receive 100 times the racially-motivated charity of those in the majority.

But I wouldn’t feel comfortable presenting this argument, because I 100% reject the quantitative method used to frame the idea. “Racism” and “charity” are not commodities to be distributed according to some zero-sum game; if you truly believe that they are, then you truly don’t understand the issue, and should just STFU.

[tomndebb]

@CJJ*

if you truly believe that they are, then you truly don’t understand the issue, and should just STFU.

Generally, only Gaudere, MEBuckner, and I are permitted to tell posters in this Forum to STFU.

I urge you to not repeat this–not even lodged in a conditional clause.

[ /Moderating ]

[miss_elizabeth]

@the raindog

3a) Where there is a sincere belief that the stop was purely race based. It is my experience that attitudes shown by you with the face, miss elizabeth, monstro, sunrazor, tomndebb and many others reinforce the stereotype that all police officers are racists

I agree with tomndeb; I do not think all police officers are racist, but I do think there is an institutionalized racism in police forces.

I mean, look, white people use drugs more often than blacks. They deal drugs more often than blacks. But overwhelmingly, it is black people that are incarcerated for drug crimes. What is that if not evidence (and I say proof) of institutional racism within the police and judicial systems? Not to mention the ridiculous difference in sentencing laws for crack (a drug usually used by blacks: longer sentences) and cocaine (a drug usually used by whites: shorter sentences). It’s the same drug! But when its in the form that black people use, it results in much longer jail times.

[whole_bean]

@the raindog

‘malice of forethought’

The term is, “malice aforethought.”

[Little_Nemo]

This argument is ridiculous. Following your logic, if I assume a premise like “everyone in a society is equally charitable-to-other-races as an individual”, then the people in the minority will receive 100 times the racially-motivated charity of those in the majority.

But I wouldn’t feel comfortable presenting this argument, because I 100% reject the quantitative method used to frame the idea. “Racism” and “charity” are not commodities to be distributed according to some zero-sum game; if you truly believe that they are, then you truly don’t understand the issue, and should just STFU.

The scenario where you suggest cross-racial charity rather than cross-racial prejudice would indeed work the exact way by the same logic. If you have a reason to reject my logic, offer it up. My conclusions may run contrary to your opinions or may make you uncomfortable with their implications but neither of these are a rebuttal.

Here’s a non-racial scenario that offers the same logic and same conclusion. Consider a predominantly male school where 90% of the students are male and 10% are female (you can use any total enrollment you wish). Now assume on Valentine’s Day every student sends out ten cards to students of the opposite gender. Do the math and compare how many cards the average male student receives with how many cards the average female students receives.

Obviously what I offered was a rather idealized version of reality for illustrative purposes. But that doesn’t make the underlying logic less true. If anything, the transfer from a theoretical model to reality would shift racism more into the white perpetrator/black victim side. The majority race would undoubtedly feel safer in being racist than the minority race would. Racists in the majority race would be more likely to find other racists of the same race to join with them and magnify their effect by group action. And individuals tend to model their behavior on the accepted norms of society and the racism of the majority race would be considered more of a norm than the racism of the minoirty race.

[LinusK]

@miss elizabeth

I agree with tomndeb; I do not think all police officers are racist, but I do think there is an institutionalized racism in police forces.

I mean, look, white people use drugs more often than blacks.

Whites don’t use drugs more often than blacks. “Rates of current illicit drug use varied significantly among the major racial/ethnic groups in 2004. The rate was highest among persons reporting two or more races (13.3 percent) and American Indians or Alaska Natives (12.3 percent). Rates were 8.1 percent for whites, 7.2 percent for Hispanics, and 8.7 percent for blacks. Asians had the lowest rate at 3.1 percent.” link

They deal drugs more often than blacks.

I don’t know of any reason to think whites are more likely to deal drugs than blacks, but if you know of one… what is it?

But overwhelmingly, it is black people that are incarcerated for drug crimes.

“Of the 1,330,802 drug abuse violations with race information available, 64.7% of those arrested were white, 33.9% were black, 0.7% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.6% were American Indian or Alaskan Native.” link

What is that if not evidence (and I say proof) of institutional racism within the police and judicial systems?

If it is proof, doesn’t it also prove that police systematically favor Asians?

Is it possible there are other factors involved in one’s chances of getting arrested - like how public you are about what you’re doing?

Not to mention the ridiculous difference in sentencing laws for crack (a drug usually used by blacks: longer sentences) and cocaine (a drug usually used by whites: shorter sentences). It’s the same drug! But when its in the form that black people use, it results in much longer jail times.

In my state (Texas), like most other states, there’s no distinction between crack and powder in terms of sentencing. There is a difference in the potency of crack and powder, (crack is more potent) but not in the punishment range.

I’m guessing you’re thinking of Federal criminal law. But the vast majority of arrests are made by state and local police, not Federal Agents. “During FY 2006, there were 25,763 Federal defendants charged with a drug offense…” That’s compared to 1,330,802 state and local arrests, or a ratio of about 53:1.

In any case, I don’t think the police would be doing black people any favors, if they ignored drug dealing in black communities. In fact, I’d argue they’d be doing them a positive disservice.