Maybe because of the current cry of rasicm that is throughout the thread?
What does that have to do with the supposed need for “growth and development” of “the black population”?
Sounds like it’s the racists that need some growth and development, not their victims.
We’re getting off the original topic, but…
I agree that there have been changes made to the laws of the racist order. I think what you and others are forgetting, however, is that there has been resistance every step of the way. These laws have been passed over the objection of a great many people, many of whom are determined to actively not support the kinds of reforms and to resist the spirit in which these laws were made.
So what does that mean in practical terms? It means that white people find ways to remove themselves from situations in which they might have to make any kind of contribution or sacrifice for the greater good or the common cause of fighting racism. That’s exactly why whites moved out of cities and into the suburbs. And when blacks followed them to suburbs, they moved to newer, more fashionable ones. As an example, some school districts fought against desegregation policies like busing for decades. Meanwhile, parents took their children and moved them out of school districts or into private schools.
What may seem like “Because racism” is valid nevertheless. Anti-discrimination laws created some consequences for people who insisted on practicing discrimination, but it didn’t eliminate discrimination outright - and it certainly didn’t erase the consequences of past discrimination.
I don’t disagree that it may have started that way but I live rural, and I am being lumped into white flight, when the only thought I had at all when starting my family was to get them in to a ‘good school’. So, me, married to a hispanic lady, with a black brother in law, and 3 half black nieces , I am being labeled as racist, along with a whole lot of other people.
We don’t have the same racist policies.
We don’t have the same racist attitudes.
We don’t have the same (any) racial motivations, and yet everything is currently being sold that way.
I disagree.
Black people were prevented by chattel slavery, by law, by racism in lending, and by redlining and other sub rosa tactics for almost the entire history of this country from accumulating wealth. But poor schools just “also happen to have a high black population.”
I won’t further engage in the hijack, but this is emblematic of the way that this sort of argument ignores the facts and blames black people for their own oppression.
Ok, so come up with changes that actually do help without alienating those willing to help (Stop calling everyone racist, stop blaming everything on race, and stop telling us that white values are a product of racism, instead of a product of what works here, don’t be scared to emulate the dominant culture (simply because of the color of their skin) if the dominant culture is successful.
Back to the subject at hand though, more training, and more money , along with rigorous filtering will go a long way to making the police force into what we all want the police force to be. And for god sakes, get rid of the police forces needing to collect monies for their municipalities. (That means more, not less funding)
What does this mean? What is this filter, and what does it catch?
And the problem is, is that anytime any bit of race is brought up, many white people have to make it all about them. If I say that you have benefited from racist policies, then you say that I am calling you a racist.
People are not saying all that stuff that you put in your parenthesis there. You are putting those words into their mouths and then blaming them for what you chose to hear.
It is your choice on how to react to objectively stated facts that makes you alienate yourself.
Don’t assume everyone is talking to you on an individual level every time that the issue of race or white flight comes up - it’s likely not the case.
I wish more white people could accept that on the one hand there is a collective level of shared responsibility (if we want to avoid the term ‘guilt’), which doesn’t necessarily mean that white individuals are guilty of racism.
I’m white and I know I never owned a slave and never deliberately or knowingly discriminated against anyone in my life. I nevertheless accept that there is a need to address racial equality in meaningful ways that go beyond affirmative action.
Wait, you are sorting out the ones that have better statistics than us to point out how bad our statistics are compared to the ones with better statistics than us?
That is pretty close to the definition of cherrypicking.
No, that is pointing out the countries that we should attempt to emulate.
If your child does poorly on a test, do you tell them to study harder like Johnny with straight A’s does, or do you give them excuses and point out that their not that far below average, assuming that you include the special ed and remedial classes?
This is utterly nonsensical. There are myriad situations where a cop has to shoot someone and it had nothing to do with the fault or lack of skill of the cop. Suppose there’s an active Columbine-type shooting and a cop goes in and sees the gunman spraying people with his AR-15; he’s got no choice but to drop the shooter dead right there. Or say someone charges at a cop with intent of “suicide by cop.” You’re essentially blaming the cop for the fact that someone decided to charge him suicidally with a gun or knife.
Cherry picking the countries that do it best to emulate? Are you saying that if you want to be, say, a better baseball player, you shouldn’t try to emulate the players with better hitting or pitching (or whatever) statistics? That seems kind of nuts to me, but whatever.
If my kid is getting a B+ and I criticize his grades by pointing to the three kids in his class getting better grades than him, that is cherrypicking.
What if you want to encourage him to do better – maybe it would be a good idea to encourage him to emulate the habits of the best students?
Yes, this surely happens on a daily basis to each cop, no matter what they’re doing or their role at the time.
We should definitely base policy on the assumption that this is the norm for all cops at all times.
I don’t think I would compare my kid with any other kid, these comparisons are never really fair. I would compare him with himself. How much has he improved over time, how much has his effort increased. But that’s just me.
But more to the point, you do not seem to be exhorting and encouraging here. You are using these stats to criticize not encourage.
Of the thousand+ times cops kill civilians every year. The vast majority of them are pretty clearly justified.
Which means what? That because (allegedly) most of the police shootings of citizens are “pretty” clearly justified, that all shootings should be assumed to be justified?