So eloquently put. :rolleyes:
Here is a link to her quotes. Could you point out the parts where this “racist” ran her mouth?
Am I the only one that’s skeptical of those self-reported claims? They remind me of all those complaints against law enforcement that are investigated and ruled invalid / unfounded / whatever term the department uses to dismiss complaints. Survey those people and they’ll tell you they were abused by the police. Survey the police department and they’ll tell you that only 8% of the complaints were sustained.
Arguing that it’s appropriate to profile black people because some other black people commit crimes, while at the same time not extending that logic to white people, is the very definition of white privilege.
They do apply that logic to white people. Black people are disproportionately “profiled” because they commit a disproportionate amount of street crime. White people are disproportionately not “profiled” because they don’t commit a disproportionate amount of street crime, nor do they live in high-crime areas. And the high-crime areas are high-crime because the people who live there commit disproportionately more crimes.
Regards,
Shodan
This is nonsense. It is the rate that people commit crime that matters. For instance there used to be a false statistic that white men were more likely to be serial killers than black men. So when a serial killer would strike people would assume it was a white guy. When a woman is killed the first person the police look at is the spouse or boyfriend. That is because husbands and boyfriends kill at a higher rate than neighbors do. There is no such thing as neighbor privilege, just awareness of patterns.
I think much of the backlash against that phrase is just because we haven’t defined “privilege” enough to make it a relatable concept for most. If I’m a poor white guy on food stamps, minimum wage, and just struggling every day… their definition of “privilege” isn’t, “Hey, the cops don’t pull me over for just driving”, it’s more like, “How can I be privileged when I live in a dump and don’t even own a car?”. No amount of stats will ever change that persons mind.
The anger that phrase creates in a section of the white population just blots out the actual point/meaning of that phrase. I have no idea how you get around that, I’m guessing some chose to vote Trump, but until we can get that section of the white population to understand that it’s not attack directly against them, but against a system, the road and struggle will be long.
You mean like the Beltway sniper? I’m sure everybody assumed it was a white guy; I know I did. But no white guy was afraid the police would suspect him just because he was white. They had the privilege of not having that worry. That there are too many instances of black men being taken in by police who were looking for someone described only as “black” shows they don’t have the luxury of that privilege.
Don’t you remember when the police swept through all the white neighborhoods hassling and questioning the white men as they went walking or driving by?
Yeah-but, all you have to do is ask a simple set of questions of them - “Would you trade places with those people? Do you have it better than those people?” (Fill in the blank of “those people”.) Not some individual they can point to (Oprah!), but the general “those people”. If they’re being honest, they will answer that: No, they would not trade places with them, and Yes, even in their own misery, they do have it better than them.
That is the definition of privilege.
Far too often “They have it so good” means “They don’t have it bad enough to suit me.”
Correct, especially when applied to white people.
Regards,
Shodan
Does that mean most black people would become white if given the chance? They would not, so does that mean black privilege exists?
Nonsense. Your argument is that if some black people are criminals then all black people should be suspected. But it’s different with white people; not all white people should be suspected even though some white people are criminals. You’re judging white people as individuals while you’re judging black people as members of a group. And judging white people and black people differently is racial prejudice.
The rate that people commit crimes doesn’t matter in profiling. It’s the thing that profiling ignores.
As you said, the rate that people commit crimes should matter. People who haven’t committed crimes should not be suspects. Even if they have the same color skin as some other people who did commit crimes.
But profiling ignores this basic idea. It says that if some black people commit crimes then all black people should be suspects.
If you have a bag filled with an equal amount of black and white marbles and (unknown to you) both colors have an equal amount of cracked marbles, if you just pick through the black marbles looking for defects can you then conclude that black marbles have more defects than white marbles?
This logic could justify virtually any disparity – if black people commit a certain crime at an X% greater rate than white people, it could justify black people being disruptively profiled at X * 10000% rate.
At what rate would you suspect that maybe something is going on beyond just rational and fair action by police departments, and how would you know to suspect it? For me, the fact that the self-reporting of police mistreatment by black people is overwhelmingly greater than that of white people – far, far greater than any disparities in crime statistics – makes me suspect that there might be systemic bias or otherwise unfair treatment going on. I suppose some folks brush this aside by believing that black people are far more likely to lie or be inaccurate in reporting police mistreatment, but I find that unconvincing – in American history, black people were, by far, the best and most accurate reporters of whether or not black people were being mistreated in a given scenario. And in all cases, the authorities they accused of mistreatment would fire back that they were lying or mistaken. The fact that most police departments report low levels of misconduct doesn’t tell me much more about police misconduct than Sheriff Bull Connor’s assessment of his own treatment of the black citizens of his jurisdiction would tell me about how he actually treated them.
No, my argument is that black people are disproportionately criminal, and thus are disproportionately suspected.
One in eleven black adults is on probation or parole, vs. 1 in 45 white adults. (Cite.) Therefore, one would expect that black adults are going to stopped at a disproportionate rate - after all, they are roughly four times more likely to be convicted criminals.
One in 18 men are on probation or parole, vs one in 89 women. Do you think that this shows prejudice against men?
Regards,
Shodan
Luckily we don’t have to guess who commits crime. Since we know that more black marbles are cracked, people who are looking for cracked marbles are going to look at more black marbles.
If where you look for crime is the African American neighborhoods, that’s where you will find it. Self-fulfilling prophecy at its best.
If I had a bag of marbles in which some amount were cracked I would examine a sample of each section of the bag. If I found that one section had a higher percent of cracked marbles then the rest of the bag I would put more effort into inspecting that section of the bag.