Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stealth on July 21, 2009, 09:09:10 am
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_harvard_scholar_disorderly
BOSTON – Supporters of a prominent Harvard University black scholar who was arrested at his own home by police responding to a report of a break-in say he is the victim of racial profiling.
Henry Louis Gates Jr. had forced his way through the front door of his home because it was jammed, his lawyer said Monday.
Cambridge police say they responded to the well-maintained two-story home near campus after a woman reported seeing "two black males with backpacks on the porch," with one "wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry."
By the time police arrived, Gates was already inside. Police say he refused to come outside to speak with an officer, who told him he was investigating a report of a break-in.
"Why, because I'm a black man in America?" Gates said, according to a police report written by Sgt. James Crowley. The Cambridge police refused to comment on the arrest Monday.
No, you idiot, because 15 minutes ago several people saw you and someone else forcing your way into an apartment, after scouting the apartment first, looking for open windows and doors...
Gates — the director of Harvard's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research — initially refused to show the officer his identification, but then gave him a Harvard University ID card, according to police.
Never heard of an institute for White and Caucasian research. Ever. This reminds me of the 'clubs' they'd have back in high-school. There was an African-American club. No i'm not kidding, there really was. When I tried starting a "Caucasian-American club", i was told by the administrators that that was unacceptable, since i was doing it "for racial reasons". what the heck? Africans in this country want equal rights, well here's a noval concept: stop trying to tell everyone how different you are, and maybe you'll get these equal rights. We have a black man as the president for crying out loud, don't come whining that you don't have rights. The more of these "African american" magazines, TV-shows, clubs, research centers, etc. that we have, the more UNequal you're making yourself!]. Everyone wants to forget the days of old, when you were slaves, and abused in this country. Sure, we ALL want to forget about that, and we'd love to, but you keep bringing it to our attention!. Some of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind were committed against racial groups, such as the Jews in Germany, far worse than what happened to African Americans but when's the last time you saw a Jew that got arrested screaming that it was because he was a Jew!? Geez guys. You want equality, then you should be the first to be displaying it
"Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him," the officer wrote.
Gates said he turned over his driver's license and Harvard ID — both with his photos — and repeatedly asked for the name and badge number of the officer, who refused.
At this point, the only person that has done anything remotely racial, is the acclaimed Mr. Gates...
He said he then followed the officer as he left his house onto his front porch, where he was handcuffed in front of other officers, Gates said in a statement released by his attorney, fellow Harvard scholar Charles Ogletree, on a Web site Gates oversees, TheRoot.com
He was arrested on a disorderly conduct charge after police said he "exhibited loud and tumultuous behavior." He was released later that day on his own recognizance. An arraignment was scheduled for Aug. 26.
As anyone would have been
Gates, 58, also refused to speak publicly Monday, referring calls to Ogletree.
"He was shocked to find himself being questioned and shocked that the conversation continued after he showed his identification," Ogletree said.
Ogletree declined to say whether he believed the incident was racially motivated, saying "I think the incident speaks for itself."
Some of Gates' African-American colleagues say the arrest is part of a pattern of racial profiling in Cambridge.
Allen Counter, who has taught neuroscience at Harvard for 25 years, said he was stopped on campus by two Harvard police officers in 2004 after being mistaken for a robbery suspect. They threatened to arrest him when he could not produce identification.
"We do not believe that this arrest would have happened if professor Gates was white," Counter said. "It really has been very unsettling for African-Americans throughout Harvard and throughout Cambridge that this happened."
The Rev. Al Sharpton said he will attend Gates' arraignment.
"This arrest is indicative of at best police abuse of power or at worst the highest example of racial profiling I have seen," Sharpton said. "I have heard of driving while black and even shopping while black but now even going to your own home while black is a new low in police community affairs."
Ogletree said Gates had returned from a trip to China on Thursday with a driver, when he found his front door jammed. He went through the back door into the home — which he leases from Harvard — shut off an alarm and worked with the driver to get the door open. The driver left, and Gates was on the phone with the property's management company when police first arrived.
And that didn't look suspicious? i would've called the police if i'd seen that too!
Ogletree also disputed the claim that Gates, who was wearing slacks and a polo shirt and carrying a cane, was yelling at the officer.
"He has an infection that has impacted his breathing since he came back from China, so he's been in a very delicate physical state," Ogletree said.
Lawrence D. Bobo, the W.E.B Du Bois Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard, said he met with Gates at the police station and described his colleague as feeling humiliated and "emotionally devastated."
lesson learned: next time don't follow the police back to their vehicles yelling at them. the fact that he was arrested at their vehicles, and not in the apartment, PROVES that he followed them. and it would make sense that he was following them while accusing them verbally.
"It's just deeply disappointing but also a pointed reminder that there are serious problems that we have to wrestle with," he said.
Bobo said he hoped Cambridge police would drop the charges and called on the department to use the incident to review training and screening procedures it has in place.
The Middlesex district attorney's office said it could not do so until after Gates' arraignment. The woman who reported the apparent break-in did not return a message Monday.
Gates joined the Harvard faculty in 1991 and holds one of 20 prestigious "university professors" positions at the school. He also was host of "African American Lives," a PBS show about the family histories of prominent U.S. blacks, and was named by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential Americans in 1997.
But i've yet to see "the top 25 most influencial whites" in ANY magazine. yet the top 25 most influential africans isn't racial!?
"I was obviously very concerned when I learned on Thursday about the incident," Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust said in a statement. "He and I spoke directly and I have asked him to keep me apprised."
So for those of you that don't want to read the whole thing, this is what happened. People saw a man break his way into an apartment, and so they reported it to the police as a break-in. Turns out it was Gates, a 'prominent african american' scholar, and his door had been jammed.
Police arrived, and asked him for identification. He started accusing them of racism (??). After providing them with identification, the officer was leaving, but Gates went after him, yelling at him, and accusing him of racism. It's at this point, that Gates was arrested, for disorderly conduct.
Now him, and others, are crying that he was racially profiled.
I disagree. If anyone's racist in this situation, i think it's the "prominent" african american scholar.
because i hate this kind of thing, i've taken the liberty of adding my own comments to the above article.
That's my rant.
-
Boy, this is a tinderbox.
It's definitely a problem, and kind of a paradox.
On the one hand, things like these African American Institutes are absolutely needed, because if we simply 'let it be' and try to pretend race doesn't exist, implicit associations will still lead to subtle prejudice against Black individuals.
On the other hand, the more attention is called to the differences between White and Black individuals (as you point out), the more stereotypes are created and the more tensions are exacerbated.
I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be, though. For instance, the reason you couldn't make a 'White Club' in high school is because White individuals are already in a position of power and privilege. They don't need comparative advancement. The establishment of a 'White Club' would be an act intended to reinforce pre-existing advantages White individuals have.
So I think there's something to be said for both sides.
-
I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be, though. For instance, the reason you couldn't make a 'White Club' in high school is because White individuals are already in a position of power and privilege. They don't need comparative advancement. The establishment of a 'White Club' would be an act intended to reinforce pre-existing advantages White individuals have.
but that's racial profiling right there - white individuals are already in a power of power and privilege? OMG OH NO YOU DIDNT JUST SAY THAT!!111
we have a black president of this country - there's no way that "white individuals are in a position of power and privilege" over black individuals. maybe 50 years ago, but not now. look at the number of black politicians, actors, professors, businessmen, etc.
-
Statistically, it's still true. Average income and level of education is far higher for White individuals. So is proportional representation in government, corporate leadership, educational faculty, and law.
Moreover, if you put an African-American and White individual with equal hiring qualifications in a competitive situation for a single job opening, the White person will be hired most of the time in controlled experimental circumstances. This is due to something called 'implicit bias', which everyone exhibits and which is very difficult to control. Similarly, in what's called a 'shooter game', where people have to make rapid decisions whether to shoot or not shoot people presented on a screen, Black individuals are far more likely to be shot than Whites (by both Black and White people alike.) Implicit bias sneaks into the cracks when a decision is difficult - for instance, it won't appear in the hiring game when the Black individual is clearly more qualified than the White; only when they're on fairly similar grounds.
Until the stereotypic associations between Black individuals and violence, crime, and poverty are gone, Blacks will remain at a disadvantage.
-
Until the stereotypic associations between Black individuals and violence, crime, and poverty are gone, Blacks will remain at a disadvantage.
unfortunately, those aren't just stereotypic associations. they're quite true many times.
-
Until the stereotypic associations between Black individuals and violence, crime, and poverty are gone, Blacks will remain at a disadvantage.
unfortunately, those aren't just stereotypic associations. they're quite true many times.
Men commit nearly all rapes. Does that mean we should assume men are rapists until we know otherwise? Religious people commit nearly all crimes. Should we assume all religious people are criminals?
I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be, though. For instance, the reason you couldn't make a 'White Club' in high school is because White individuals are already in a position of power and privilege. They don't need comparative advancement. The establishment of a 'White Club' would be an act intended to reinforce pre-existing advantages White individuals have.
but that's racial profiling right there - white individuals are already in a power of power and privilege? OMG OH NO YOU DIDNT JUST SAY THAT!!111
we have a black president of this country - there's no way that "white individuals are in a position of power and privilege" over black individuals. maybe 50 years ago, but not now. look at the number of black politicians, actors, professors, businessmen, etc.
The fact is, you can still, to this day, find places in the US where black/white segregation is still around. In my hometown, whites (a tiny minority) own every single property, and blacks can only live on one side of Main St, where rent is cheap because the trailers are packed three to a lot and really ****ty.
There are places in the "land of the free" where a Realtor will tell you, without any fear of reprimand, that she won't sell you a particular house because it would cause trouble.
So, yes, whites are still in a position of power over blacks.
-
Until the stereotypic associations between Black individuals and violence, crime, and poverty are gone, Blacks will remain at a disadvantage.
unfortunately, those aren't just stereotypic associations. they're quite true many times.
:lol:
-
Until the stereotypic associations between Black individuals and violence, crime, and poverty are gone, Blacks will remain at a disadvantage.
unfortunately, those aren't just stereotypic associations. they're quite true many times.
:lol:
No, that's exactly what a stereotypic association is - they arise from the brain's tendency to over-represent the link between two rare events. In this case, the comparatively rare Black person, and the comparatively rare occurrence of crime. On a biological level, it appears that most people will remember a minority person committing a crime more than they will remember a White person doing so.
As for the co-occurrence itself, perhaps it's because poverty leads to crime? Meaning that the solution is more equality, maybe even some assistance? Black people do not yet face a level playing field, and the very problems they face contribute to the stereotypes that create even more such problems. It's a vicious cycle.
-
GB, if I was doing what this guy did, and to black police officers, there would be no story.
-
I've been stopped by the Police for breaking into my own house, not only did I apologise to them profusely for wasting their time (after all, it was my fault, I'd forgotten my keys), but I also went over to the neighbour who phoned them and thanked them for doing so.
-
GB, if I was doing what this guy did, and to black police officers, there would be no story.
Nothing that I said was particularly relevant to this individual's actions. I think he was being quite absurd.
If you were targeted by black police officers for hostile treatment due to your race, of course that would be racism. On an overall social level, it would be less harmful than white officers targeting a black individual, because it doesn't play into an existing power dynamic of fear and oppression, but I doubt that you - as the victim - would feel that way.
You'll note that at no point in my posts did I engage with the original situation; instead, I was addressing some of Stealth's comments. Your comment is therefore a bit of a non sequitur.
-
Statistically, it's still true. Average income and level of education is far higher for White individuals. So is proportional representation in government, corporate leadership, educational faculty, and law.
This reminds me of a paper wrote by Havard Professor Roland G. Fryer Jr. called 'Acting White' It's an interesting read and suggest that racial profiling goes as far as to stop some African Americans from succeeding because they feel they are 'acting white'.
http://economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer
Here's the paper - http://economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/aw_ednext.pdf
"‘Acting white’ very well may explain the lack of minority students in elite colleges and universities,”
He says that the phenomenon is more common in public schools with less than 20% Black students. But almost non-existent in all black public schools and all black private schools.
This whole situation seems more to involve race rather than discrimination based on race. The two are often confused.
-
I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be, though. For instance, the reason you couldn't make a 'White Club' in high school is because White individuals are already in a position of power and privilege. They don't need comparative advancement. The establishment of a 'White Club' would be an act intended to reinforce pre-existing advantages White individuals have.
but that's racial profiling right there - white individuals are already in a power of power and privilege? OMG OH NO YOU DIDNT JUST SAY THAT!!111
Guess what's the point of racial profiling?
Trying to get rid of ooold priviledges which are largely based on ethnic and economic history.
In any western country your success is largely based on pure chance and your economic status. If you lack economic status, your children are going to have difficulties trying to reach the children of the upper classes in every single area of life. If there weren't historic reasons for trying to forcefully bring the minorities to equal footing with those which's priviledges run back for centuries, then there wouldn't be racial profiling.
I find it absolutely unbeliavable that white people are complaining about racial profiling. It is a tool that has an explicit goal of getting rich of itself.
we have a black president of this country - there's no way that "white individuals are in a position of power and privilege" over black individuals. maybe 50 years ago, but not now. look at the number of black politicians, actors, professors, businessmen, etc.
Bull****, I cannot believe you fell for this trap.
Look at the prisoner statistics. Look at income statistics. Look at the fact that your beloved president is not, in fact, one of the majority of black people in the USA. Look at the effects of segregation - one that, in some parts of USA, only ceased to formally exist about 40 years ago. Look at literacy rates, look at crime rates, look at goddamn beauty models and what society ranks as "pretty". Tell me that even legal racism that existed till quite recently does not have a profound effect here, and that white people aren't statistically better off than their colour counterparts that in every other way equal them.
Tell me there isn't a history of negligence and unconscious colour-based class society that still exists in US. Tell me. I dare you.
Tell me that history is completely irrelevant nowadays.
-
buddy, rather than reply to all 'that', how about you just help me stick to the topic at hand.
Was the professor right? Did he have reason to be upset and act the way he did?
-
No, I don't think he did. He took the racism thing too far and tried to use the Black social position as a defense against perfectly reasonable police action.
That said I think all the critiques Janos makes are very valid.
EDIT: After re-reading the article more closely...I don't know. I think maybe he did have reason to be angry like that. I can understand his feelings.
-
Was the professor right? Did he have reason to be upset and act the way he did?
From what I read there was no excuse to act that way.
-
You'll never get perfect equality and perfect distribution.
So just because statiscticly there aren't as many mexicans in the government as there are whites, or as many asians in the Richest 100 as there are indians or whites - well it doesn't mean anything. It means jack s***.
you're not going to get a perfect round distributon, especialy since we can discuss at length what such perfect distribution would be. As long as all have equal rights and can apply to any position and reach it, then it's all good. Period.
I friggin hate humanity for it's stupidity.
-
Man, where's High Max? You think he'd be all over this topic?
That said, it is my firm opinion that this man was in fact the only person involved (as far as the article states) that was acting in a racist manner. The fact that he wasn't even arrested at the apartment gives credence to much of the story.
-
you're not going to get a perfect round distributon, especialy since we can discuss at length what such perfect distribution would be. As long as all have equal rights and can apply to any position and reach it, then it's all good. Period.
This is what's currently missing, however. So you are in agreement with Janos and myself, then?
Man, where's High Max? You think he'd be all over this topic?
That said, it is my firm opinion that this man was in fact the only person involved (as far as the article states) that was acting in a racist manner. The fact that he wasn't even arrested at the apartment gives credence to much of the story.
I don't think he was acting racist, I think he was acting in a way motivated by racism. I agree that he was the only one acting improperly. I can see his reasons but I don't think they're enough.
But do you recognize the fundamental problems that lead to this kind of bitterness?
-
EDIT: After re-reading the article more closely...I don't know. I think maybe he did have reason to be angry like that. I can understand his feelings.
Help me understand how he had an excuse to act that way...? :confused:
If anything he was "could" be upset with the fact that his neighbor called the police because of a "break in." Which he presumed was based on discrimination, could of been I don't know.
But the police was respectful from what I read unless I missed something?
He acted irresponsible, irrational, and didn't control his anger. There is no excuse for such behavior.
-
This is what's currently missing, however. So you are in agreement with Janos and myself, then?
What's missing?
I don't think he was acting racist, I think he was acting in a way motivated by racism.
Forgive me if I fail to see any real difference. Both are the result of flawed perception, both "accuse" a specific group of some wrongdoings.
-
He probably had one hell of a day. Forgot his keys (I assume), probably tired as **** and just wanted to get into his god damned house to have some rest. Then some police guys come and accuse him of being a burglar. I'm sure anyone, white, black or whatever, would have gotten pissed off at this point, and I can understand that.
Then he accuses the officers of racial discrimination, which is where IMO he goes into the wrong...
-
As I hinted at earlier, I'd be pleased if the Police stopped me whilst breaking into my own house, it sure beats 'There's probably nothing we can do, Sir' which accompanies most burglaries.
Thing is, regardless of colour of skin, if two men are reported shunting open a door of a house, then the Police are obligated to respond, it's their job to respond, when that person then refuses to give identification, that is also going to set alarm bells ringing.
I can't understand why he mentioned his colour first of all, at least, according to the Police report, that, to me, suggests defensiveness for no reason whatsoever, and would have also made me concerned as a Police Officer.
-
...A Challenger Appears.
(http://i30.tinypic.com/11ghn39.jpg)
EDIT: To infuse this post with a message, here goes my 0.02 monetary units.
Having not been present at the incident, I can't be sure but it certainly smells like all racial profiling was happening between the alleged victim's ears.
Most people are just doing their work. Checking up the break-in report is the police officers' job. Even if it might be an annoyance being accosted at your own home, it would be perfectly understandable to me that this would happen when you break your way into a house, even your own.
With some foresight, this character could easily have informed his neighbors of the situation he was in and the whole incident could have been avoided. Or is he so alien to his neighbors that they would not have recognized him? :nervous:
If you follow law enforcement officers and shout at them, it is highly likely that they will arrest you regardless of your pigmentation density.
-
As long as all have equal rights and can apply to any position and reach it, then it's all good. Period.
HMMMM
-
this is going nowhere fast
...A Challenger Appears.
(http://i30.tinypic.com/11ghn39.jpg)
-
after actually reading this and realizing it wasnt a total troll fest, i unlocked it
-
EDIT: After re-reading the article more closely...I don't know. I think maybe he did have reason to be angry like that. I can understand his feelings.
Help me understand how he had an excuse to act that way...? :confused:
If anything he was "could" be upset with the fact that his neighbor called the police because of a "break in." Which he presumed was based on discrimination, could of been I don't know.
But the police was respectful from what I read unless I missed something?
He acted irresponsible, irrational, and didn't control his anger. There is no excuse for such behavior.
I can empathize with why he acted the way he did. He's old, he was tired, frustrated, and unhappy - all this combined with a life spent studying the kind of crap that Black individuals deal with. There was apparently a history of racial profiling in the area, and he was right to think that police would respond differently to a report of a Black individual attempting a breakin than a White individual, if only on the mental (rather than the operational) level. So, with all that, he got a bit out of hand. *shrug* I still think it was wrong, but I understand why it happened.
Empathy is important, even when you disagree with someone.
-
Okay I understand and I agree - empathy is important.
But as we can both agree it is not a ticket to be a jerk towards the man doing his job and to say that the police did have a biased approach to the situation is a generalization towards the police officer.
I think your right that he probably expected the worse from the police because of his personal connection to the topic of racism.
If men could only know each other, they would neither idolize nor hate. ~Elbert Hubbard
One of my favorite quotes as of recently. :cool:
-
Empathy is important, even when you disagree with someone.
Yet the law cannot be empathic; it must be blind to that and to race.
-
There was no legal question raised here, simply one of personal morality and understanding.
I would not in any way assert that the officers did anything wrong.
-
There was apparently a history of racial profiling in the area, and he was right to think that police would respond differently to a report of a Black individual attempting a breakin than a White individual, if only on the mental (rather than the operational) level.
This is not correct. He was completely in error to think that police would respond differently. Only if they do respond differently at the scene is there reason at all. Thinking that they would respond differently with the only basis being an area-wide history of racial profiling is, in and of itself racial profiling.
In short: He was in error.
-
It's funny that you quoted my post and yet apparently didn't read it.
Let me highlight the relevant bit for you:
if only on the mental (rather than the operational) level
He was probably pissed off because he knew that, mentally, most people will react differently to a statement like 'a black man is hammering on your house door' than 'a white man is hammering on your house door.' In fact, I'm doing research on the topic right now, and I can pull up data that shows how police officers respond differently on the cognitive level even though their actions remain the same.
Lastly, I stated that he was in error with respect to his conduct, and I have consistently maintained that he was in error throughout my posts in spite of my attempts to empathize with him, so to have you step in and 'correct' me with the statement 'he was in error' is rather unnecessary, don't you think?
If you're going to make an argument at least take the time to ensure that you're disagreeing with the person you're arguing with.
-
I see. I misunderstood your position when you stated that he was right to think that way. I apologize.
-
Oh, also, since it hasn't been pointed out yet, racism against whites is not "reverse discrimination." It's just plain ole discrimination.
-
This is something that always annoyed me about political correctness, it pushes us to focus on WHAT we are instead of WHO we are, not to mention the proliferation of stereotypes.
Part of the other problem is too many of them think it is their race that is holding them down, and so they use it as an excuse to justify their failures. "I don't have a good job because I'm black because I'm discriminated against all the time so why do I bother?" That kind of attitude is what is holding them down, not their skin color. Where are the black engineers? I've never seen one, not even seen any of them studying to become one, even though the majority of university scholarships are race or gender motivated.
Take for example, one of the things this guy said, a reformed felon who (at the time) was studying engineering in university (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=08773583efeae4e9fe5d7c6ba1518347&t=75649)
my question is who in the world is going to hire me as an engineer? I'm an african american and a convicted felon that's a double whammy! I excell in school and i'm always among the top students in any class that i've taken. but i cant help but envy the squeaky clean white guys that are barely passing but when it comes time for a job i'll be overlooked for them. I'm expecting to graduate with above a 3.5 average but with my record i don't think that that wil make much of a difference to most employers.
-
Well, where do you think he got the idea that he'd have a damn near impossible time finding a job as a black felon?
You can't say stereotypes come from reality and then say he totally pulled this bit out of his ass.
The "why bother trying, I'll only fail because of discrimination" line of thought is pretty common in all people, though. Just replace "discrimination" with your excuse of choice.
-
Even if he were white (and I use particularly ugly phrase sparingly), being a convicted felon would put him behind everyone else in the field.
It has less to do with the fact that he's black than it has to do with the fact that he was convicted for a major crime.
-
Technically untrue. There's a phenomenon called...damn it, it's slipping my mind, but it's related to something called 'intersectional invisibility.'
Because being a convict is a stereotype-congruent trait for Black individuals, it's going to do more damage to a Black person than to a White individual. In a sense, it'll 'activate' all the other negative stereotypes about Black people.
On a similar note, you should check out the research about successful black executives. Most of them are baby-faced, i.e. nonthreatening and 'young'. White male executives, on the other hand, tend to have stern, mature features, which appear more dominant.
-
So let me understand, it's stereotyping of me to deduce that there are more Black felons, not because they are inherently criminals from being black, but that instead, segments of the population that are black have fewer fathers per capita that actually do the responsible thing and help raise they're child(ren).
-
So let me understand, it's stereotyping of me to deduce that there are more Black felons, not because they are inherently criminals from being black, but that instead, segments of the population that are black have fewer fathers per capita that actually do the responsible thing and help raise they're child(ren).
There's absolutely no reason to insert black into the equation at all. It's irrelevant. What you're saying is that you deduce that felons tend to come out of populations which are less likely to have responsible father figures as a part of the household.
-
That's what he was saying. Thank you for making his point for him. There is absolutely no reason for it.
-
Well, it is stereotyping (even worse, it's assuming that lack of a father causes felony). It's just not a race-related stereotype. However, if you think race is relevant to the assumption, then that's actually just racist by definition.
-
However, if you think race is relevant to the assumption, then that's actually just racist by definition.
Quick question: did you think that I thought race was relevant? I meant exactly the opposite. I think that race should never be a factor for anything. Period.
(slightly) off-topic: That's why I intensely dislike affirmative action.
-
Scotty, your ideas would be wonderful in a world where the playing field is in fact, level, and hopefully someday they'll have a place.
But for now, racism is a prevalent and subtle factor, and it must be fought.
-
However, if you think race is relevant to the assumption, then that's actually just racist by definition.
Quick question: did you think that I thought race was relevant? I meant exactly the opposite. I think that race should never be a factor for anything. Period.
(slightly) off-topic: That's why I intensely dislike affirmative action.
I didn't think you thought that. I was just clarifying further why it's not part of the equation.
TBH, I don't really understand affirmative action very well, but it does leave a bitter taste in my mouth.
-
This topic is on track for now but i'm keeping tabs on it. . . .
For the record my stance on the original topic is- regardless of circumstance, if the police want a chat, chat with them. Law is law and cooperation prevents escalation.
-
This topic is on track for now but i'm keeping tabs on it. . . .
For the record my stance on the original topic is- regardless of circumstance, if the police want a chat, chat with them. Law is law and cooperation prevents escalation.
No thanks, I don't talk to strangers. Especially ones in authoritative positions.
-
That's your own fault then.
-
Fifth Amendment says different.
-
Fifth Amendment is also an auto-suspicion. Meaning that they will most likely pester you for longer.
-
Don't read to much into it if the guy in the topic got arrested for non compliance.
And don't incite, my view is valid.
-
I suppose the way I see it is, if the Police had stopped an actual burglar, regardless of skin colour, and then let him go because he claimed he owned the house without producing any evidence whatsoever that this was the case, how loud would this guy be shouting then?
-
Fifth Amendment is also an auto-suspicion.
Not legally, it's not.
-
When someone pleads the Fifth, it sets off some alarm bells (at least to me). Legally, they may not be able to do anything about it, but you singled yourself out as knowing more than you let on (whether it's important or not).
-
Legally you're meant to use the crossing lights. .
-
Even if he were white (and I use particularly ugly phrase sparingly), being a convicted felon would put him behind everyone else in the field.
It has less to do with the fact that he's black than it has to do with the fact that he was convicted for a major crime.
The point was he clearly sees his race as a major liability. But that still doesn't answer the challenge, why do we hardly (if ever) see any black engineers or doctors, and of those how many of them are even American instead of immigrated Africans?
-
When someone pleads the Fifth, it sets off some alarm bells (at least to me). Legally, they may not be able to do anything about it, but you singled yourself out as knowing more than you let on (whether it's important or not).
The point of the fifth amendment is that you don't have to say anything to the police without first consulting a lawyer. It's a protection against the police holding up a nonanswer as evidence that you did something wrong. Whether you are guilty or not, you have the right to not incriminate yourself. That's the job of the police.
Kinda like invoking the fourth amendment (no search without a warrant) doesn't mean you have drugs or dead bodies in your trunk. It just mean you don't want the cops digging around in your ****.
Don't even start "if you're innocent you should have no problem..." bull****. That's stupid.
But that still doesn't answer the challenge, why do we hardly (if ever) see any black engineers or doctors, and of those how many of them are even American instead of immigrated Africans?
Most likely the same reason only 0.14% (if I'm being very generous) of the registered members of this forum are female.
-
Societal Stigmata within the group and Societal/Media pressure from outside, people get pushed onto rails, depending on their gender and their social, racial and financial backgrounds unfortunately :(
Edit: It's the case of the self-generating stereotype to be honest, people live up to what society expects of their stereotype, not the person themselves, and it's that circle which needs breaking.
-
Edit: It's the case of the self-generating stereotype to be honest, people live up to what society expects of their stereotype, not the person themselves, and it's that circle which needs breaking.
I learned about that phenomenon in Psychology class! :D
Societal Stigmata within the group and Societal/Media pressure from outside, people get pushed onto rails, depending on their gender and their social, racial and financial backgrounds unfortunately :(
Who encourages black kids to be engineers? Probably the same people who encourage girls to be engineers. There aren't a lot of them. :[
-
Exactly, there's a stereotype of Engineers being white men with a Gillette shave and a perfectly clean hard-hat, which is, in and of itself, a lie, but because of that, people generally expect Engineers to be male, white and in their 20-30's.
Because companies realise that this is what the consumer expects, they go out of their way to produce the image the customer expects to see, including using the same image in their own advertising, which serves to strengthen the belief and close the circle.
Edit: It has to be mentioned though, as I think someone mentioned earlier, that the problem is on both sides of the fence, people do builds walls around what they believe they are capable of, but it's a lot easier for corporations to break those walls than individuals.
-
Well, it is stereotyping (even worse, it's assuming that lack of a father causes felony). It's just not a race-related stereotype. However, if you think race is relevant to the assumption, then that's actually just racist by definition.
But, there is a corollary link between lack of responsible fathers and criminal behavior. I know, correlation does not equal causation, but you have to admit it's a fairly reliable indicator.
I noted the blackness of this aspect of the issue simply to illustrate the "shooting of the foot" that happens in "black society" more frequently than in society in general.
Again, I stand with Dr. King. Content of character before skin color or anything else come into play. You want me to respect you, give me a reason, not some bull**** about how I'm holding you down.
-
The same could be said about middle management in the corporate world circa 50's and even as late as the 80's but we've made leaps and bounds since then thankfully.
-
Oh, certainly, compared to 30 years ago, racism is massively in decline, but I suppose the problem was that equality had to be achieved from the lowest wage level and working its way upwards. The higher it gets on the wage and power bracket, the tougher job it has, not only because it is fighting more influential people, but because less people in the community actually consider it worth fighting for because they have convinced themselves that they'd never achieve that kind of level in the first place.
-
Scotty, your ideas would be wonderful in a world where the playing field is in fact, level, and hopefully someday they'll have a place.
But for now, racism is a prevalent and subtle factor, and it must be fought.
I say bollocks. Just because there still are some people who act racist doesn't mean racism is rampart or a big problem. Or are you saying that as long as a single individual on a planet exists that harbors racists thought, we must crusade against it in a annoying manner?
As long as anyone, regardless of skin color or religion or whatever can apply for any position and achieve it, so long as he has the same basic rights as everyone else - then there is no problem.
While the playing field may not be 100% the same, it will never be....well, not unless you brainwash all of the humanity and merge it into a collective. The basic rules are set and are being employed. That's what counts. Everything else is inconsequental.
-
people generally expect Engineers to be male, white and in their 20-30's.
I disagree with that, they usually expect some asian wizkid these days.
Because companies realise that this is what the consumer expects, they go out of their way to produce the image the customer expects to see, including using the same image in their own advertising, which serves to strengthen the belief and close the circle.
But that ignores one of the points I made, how can they hire black engineers when there are few to none that are studying to be engineers? I think part of the problem is their attitudes towards studying in general, and without that how can you get any kind of legal high paying job that isn't being sports or rap star?
-
I don't think the "why aren't there as many black engineers" quiestio ncannot be answered simply.
There's probably many, many factors as to why is that. Everything from income to personal aspiration to distance to god-knows-what-else.
-
Scotty, your ideas would be wonderful in a world where the playing field is in fact, level, and hopefully someday they'll have a place.
But for now, racism is a prevalent and subtle factor, and it must be fought.
I say bollocks. Just because there still are some people who act racist doesn't mean racism is rampart or a big problem. Or are you saying that as long as a single individual on a planet exists that harbors racists thought, we must crusade against it in a annoying manner?
It still needs to be fought when almost everyone on the planet (myself and yourself included) displays prejudiced results on an implicit association test.
As long as anyone, regardless of skin color or religion or whatever can apply for any position and achieve it, so long as he has the same basic rights as everyone else - then there is no problem.
Absolutely, but that's not possible right now.
-
Let me just throw this in. An example of racism, in the form of reverse discrimination.
Sotomayer:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she answered repeatedly during the press conference.
Can you imagine if a white candidate had said the same thing, but about a black male? Are you kidding? There would have been riots nationwide! There is NO WAY he (or she) would still be a supreme court candidate.
That's reverse discrimination :)
-
Oh, jeez, Stealth. People have been talking about this for weeks.
First off, it's not reverse discrimination. It's just discrimination.
Second, the reason there would've been riots nationwide is because a white male is in a position of power and therefore has trouble empathizing with minority groups. If her point was that a Latina woman understands the difficulties of life as a minority member (both as a Latina and a woman, neither group in a position of power) better than a white male, then she was making a valid point.
You're ignoring the fact that there are very real power dynamics in the world, and white men are at the top of most of them. She has the right to suggest that someone from the societal 'underclasses' may have a better understanding of how difficult things can be.
-
@Kosh:
Well, the thing is, because of the pressure inside the industry that certain 'types' of people fulfill certain roles, the people who are training up for that career who don't fill those roles face two sets of obstacles, the industries, and the limitations of belief that they impose on themselves.
So you don't see many black engineers because many from that background have defeated themselves before they try by saying 'no-one will employ me because I'm not white' AND because those that do take the risk still face a very real obstacle with being accepted.
Thing is, if there was a massive upswell in non-whites taking an Engineering degree, the industry would have to conform to the personnel available, but because it's maybe one or two in a class, that stigma remains.
Edit: I actually met a Manager once who thought that because the Admin Assistant and the Receptionist were both minorities that he was an equal opportunity employer. Not ONE member of management was non-white. Now, it's possible that these were the best qualified people for the job, but it's equally possible that casual racism was taking place. The hard part is identifying which.
-
As long as anyone, regardless of skin color or religion or whatever can apply for any position and achieve it, so long as he has the same basic rights as everyone else - then there is no problem.
Absolutely, but that's not possible right now.
No?
US has a black president - that's the highest position one can aspire too.
Black people can apply for any position and get it. There are black people found in any position. So exactly what's the problem here?
Unless you're not talking about the US?
-
Trashman, did you see my earlier post in this thread? Racism and discrimination *are* rampant in parts of this country. There are places where blacks can't even buy certain houses, let alone work certain jobs.
-
You can re-read my posts for detail, but the problem is that Black individuals cannot achieve most positions without extraordinary efforts. The playing field isn't anywhere near level. The earlier example I gave of the hiring decision is one such case: given a Black and a White individual of equivalent qualifications, the White individual will almost always be hired. There is experimental data to prove this, as well as real-life statistics.
Class is also tied into the race issue. Obama was a wealthy, well-educated man. More Black people are born into poverty and have trouble reaching high education as compared to Whites. This is because of socioeconomic problems that were originally caused by racism, and while it's debatable whether they still are, the root cause is still there.
Moreover, nearly everyone is racist on a subconscious level - we all maintain stereotypic associations between Black individuals and violence, crime, poverty, and stupidity. Until those are gone, the problem is nowhere near solved.
It is naive to think that racism is no longer a problem. It is doubly naive to cite President Obama as a reason for it.
Trashman, did you see my earlier post in this thread? Racism and discrimination *are* rampant in parts of this country. There are places where blacks can't even buy certain houses, let alone work certain jobs.
And that.
Trash, you need to stop arguing vehemently against tiny, disconnected fragments of other people's posts, and actually make a good-faith effort to understand and connect with the arguments others make. We show you that courtesy; you should do the same.
-
I wouldn't use the President too heavily as an example of 'equal opportunities', that's like calling a boat 'Pussy Hunter' and saying it's not sexist because the figurehead is a woman...
-
Moreover, nearly everyone is racist on a subconscious level - we all maintain stereotypic associations between Black individuals and violence, crime, poverty, and stupidity. Until those are gone, the problem is nowhere near solved.
The problem is, I don't think that this is a very solvable issue because of the very fact that it's subconscious. Persuading someone is one thing, but to change the way their mind works is another.
-
I guess the problem solves itself, given enough time (when everything has been thoroughly mixed).
-
Moreover, nearly everyone is racist on a subconscious level - we all maintain stereotypic associations between Black individuals and violence, crime, poverty, and stupidity. Until those are gone, the problem is nowhere near solved.
The problem is, I don't think that this is a very solvable issue because of the very fact that it's subconscious. Persuading someone is one thing, but to change the way their mind works is another.
Not at all. Most people no longer show subconscious associations with respect to, say, Irish Catholics. These would likely have been very prevalent earlier in this century, but now, they've nearly vanished.
These things can change.
-
Those attitudes can and will change over time, but preferential treatment isn't going to help change it. Preferential treatment is just going to make people angry.
EDIT: And sure, there aren't that many black engineers. There also aren't that many white American basketball players in the NBA. Implicit discrimination works both ways.
-
Positive discrimination will not work, in my opinion. Simply attaching a prosthetic 'positive' does not change the meaning of the second word, and that is the word that is the problem.
I can understand the thinking behind it, but it's flawed, because it assumes that those who are discriminated against by it don't mind in the slightest. Discrimination of any sort will always lead to anger in those being targeted, and it infuriates me that so called 'politically correct' institutions seem to work hard to widen the conceptual gap between non-white and white employees instead of trying to remove it.
-
Those attitudes can and will change over time, but preferential treatment isn't going to help change it. Preferential treatment is just going to make people angry.
EDIT: And sure, there aren't that many black engineers. There also aren't that many white American basketball players in the NBA. Implicit discrimination works both ways.
Can you go back and read my first post in the thread?
People keep leaping at shadows - or, in this case, assertions that were never made.
In this case, however, affirmative action may help bootstrap the disadvantaged into better socioeconomic conditions, helping expose everyone to educated, successful Black individuals. These people might otherwise be trapped in poverty. (All that said, I think that class-based, rather than race-based, assistance is a much better route.)
While your NBA example is definitely a good one, I think we can agree that basketball player, a position in which one is bought, sold, and traded on the basis of physical abilities, is not really a great example of Black empowerment. :p
-
Any major league sport has that flaw....
-
Also, just to revisit an earlier point, I want to point out that the reason Stealth's commentary on the article is flawed is because it ignores the existence of power dynamics.
For example, there are no lists of the 'top 25 influential White Americans' because influence is historically, and by default, concentrated in the hands of White individuals. There's no benefit from calling attention to it, no negative stereotype that needs to be brought down.
-
Trashman, did you see my earlier post in this thread? Racism and discrimination *are* rampant in parts of this country. There are places where blacks can't even buy certain houses, let alone work certain jobs.
No, i disagree. If a black man tried buying a house, and had all his cards lined up (i.e. he had the credit, etc.) and he was denied it, then there is NO WAY that would fly these days. Are you kidding? Sharpton and Jackson would be on that like a duck on a beetle. THAT would make yahoo.com's front page news right there.
The only way a black can't purchase certain houses in this country these days is when he/she can't afford it. And that's got nothing to do with his/her race.
If you have the money, ain't no way someone's going to prevent you purchasing a certain house. no way.
-
No, i disagree. If a black man tried buying a house, and had all his cards lined up (i.e. he had the credit, etc.) and he was denied it, then there is NO WAY that would fly these days. Are you kidding? Sharpton and Jackson would be on that like a duck on a beetle. THAT would make yahoo.com's front page news right there.
The only way a black can't purchase certain houses in this country these days is when he/she can't afford it. And that's got nothing to do with his/her race.
If you have the money, ain't no way someone's going to prevent you purchasing a certain house. no way.
Hate to break it to you, but that happens all the time. The idea that racism is more or less gone is nuts.
-
Moreover, nearly everyone is racist on a subconscious level - we all maintain stereotypic associations between Black individuals and violence, crime, poverty, and stupidity. Until those are gone, the problem is nowhere near solved.
The problem is, I don't think that this is a very solvable issue because of the very fact that it's subconscious. Persuading someone is one thing, but to change the way their mind works is another.
Not at all. Most people no longer show subconscious associations with respect to, say, Irish Catholics. These would likely have been very prevalent earlier in this century, but now, they've nearly vanished.
These things can change.
These things can indeed change, but I don't think that it's nearly that quick in most cases. Otherwise, I'm at a loss as to why there has been racism and sexism for thousands of years, and compared to the issue with Irish Catholics being cleared up within almost a single century.
Granted, I was never taught much about the psychology of stereotyping, and what little I was taught is likely wrong, I think comparing the racism between black persons and white persons to prejudice against Irish Catholics seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
-
To just double up on what I was saying before and to give some background. I live just outside Baltimore. If you don't know, Baltimore is 65% black and 35% white. Baltimore County, where I live (about 15 miles from the city itself) is almost reversed. 75% white and 20% black.
I have seen some really racist people on both sides of the line, and enough of them that I know it isn't just a few bad apples.
Whites ***** about blacks ruining areas and blacks ***** about whites keeping them down. But believe me, the racism IS there.
-
Trashman, did you see my earlier post in this thread? Racism and discrimination *are* rampant in parts of this country. There are places where blacks can't even buy certain houses, let alone work certain jobs.
No, i disagree. If a black man tried buying a house, and had all his cards lined up (i.e. he had the credit, etc.) and he was denied it, then there is NO WAY that would fly these days. Are you kidding? Sharpton and Jackson would be on that like a duck on a beetle. THAT would make yahoo.com's front page news right there.
The only way a black can't purchase certain houses in this country these days is when he/she can't afford it. And that's got nothing to do with his/her race.
If you have the money, ain't no way someone's going to prevent you purchasing a certain house. no way.
Actually, this happened to my family a few years ago when we first moved to North Carolina. The Realtor wouldn't sell us a house because she thought we were black based on our last name. She told us this. The house was in the white part of town, and we had more than enough money to buy it (in fact shortly after we bought that house, we bought several other ones in town).
These things can indeed change, but I don't think that it's nearly that quick in most cases. Otherwise, I'm at a loss as to why there has been racism and sexism for thousands of years, and compared to the issue with Irish Catholics being cleared up within almost a single century.
Granted, I was never taught much about the psychology of stereotyping, and what little I was taught is likely wrong, I think comparing the racism between black persons and white persons to prejudice against Irish Catholics seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
It probably has something to do with the fact that you can't look at a person and know they are an Irish Catholic, whereas it's usually obvious if someone is black/white or male/female.
-
Trashman, did you see my earlier post in this thread? Racism and discrimination *are* rampant in parts of this country. There are places where blacks can't even buy certain houses, let alone work certain jobs.
No, i disagree. If a black man tried buying a house, and had all his cards lined up (i.e. he had the credit, etc.) and he was denied it, then there is NO WAY that would fly these days. Are you kidding? Sharpton and Jackson would be on that like a duck on a beetle. THAT would make yahoo.com's front page news right there.
The only way a black can't purchase certain houses in this country these days is when he/she can't afford it. And that's got nothing to do with his/her race.
If you have the money, ain't no way someone's going to prevent you purchasing a certain house. no way.
Actually, I've also seen this happen around here and a lot. Blacks will be denied the house because they couldn't in "good conscience" sell them the house. Also I've seen it with whites in a predominately black neighborhood.
-
I think what's being missed is that these so-called "minority groups" are just as biased, if not more so, than the average white person. And unlike the average white person, won't get called on it.
People are biased, it's just the way it is. Opinions are like noses, everyone has one unless there's be a severe incident to remove it.
-
What does 'biased' mean? You act like it's some kind of fluid that fills up in a tank in people's heads.
Given that racial prejudice has apparently decreased sharply in the past fifty years, your point seems a little spurious.
-
Hopefully there's no one on here racist enough, but I've seen in other forums that around now, someone starts whining about blacks not showing enough gratitude for desegregation, affirmative action, etc. :rolleyes: I'm half waiting for it.
careful CD
-
I'm not throwing myself into this debate, but this needs to be said:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "REVERSE DISCRIMINATION." IT IS JUST "DISCRIMINATION" PERIOD FULL STOP END OF SENTENCE.
The term "reverse discrimination" implies that the group experiencing it is the group which ordinarily promotes negative forms of discrimination in the first place - and such generalizations are patently false.
-
I gotta admit, I found Obama commenting on the issue very inappropriate. Making decisive commentary on a situation at this stage of the game from a person in his position doesn't seem in keeping with the impartial role of the office. If it was something clear cut like Rodney King then by all means drop the hammer, but in this case its just as likely that the Professor was in the wrong. Until a proper investigation has been conducted the President of the United States shouldn't be back handing the police department.
-
Add to that the fact that the defendant and President know each other and it gives even more reason for him to not state an opinion on the matter.
I don't mind if Obama highlights the problems of racial profiling, but there are far more obvious cases that he could use, as you said, Rodney King is a good example, this, however, is not, and I suspect he's severely set back Police relations in the area by accusing them of acting 'stupidly'.
-
Here's the thing. Obama isn't impartial, and I'm ok with that, but what scares me is he has now something like 23 people doing the jobs of Cabinet level officials, they aren't accountable to anyone BUT Obama. Add to that they are among the most lunatic fringe leftists in the entire country. That scares me. I know this is off topic, but it's on my heart. This Czar situation frightens me.
-
How is this any different from anything Bush did?
Obama's presidency seems to be going swimmingly so far, I see no cause for alarm.
-
Here's the thing. Obama isn't impartial, and I'm ok with that, but what scares me is he has now something like 23 people doing the jobs of Cabinet level officials, they aren't accountable to anyone BUT Obama. Add to that they are among the most lunatic fringe leftists in the entire country. That scares me. I know this is off topic, but it's on my heart. This Czar situation frightens me.
You mean there are people in the Executive Branch who answer to the Chief Executive? You don't say. Isn't that what Cabinet level officials.... do?
Secondly, they aren't the lunatic leftist fringe. That's just scare tactics. Believe me, we can find a lunatic leftist fringe. It's not Obama.
-
It's me. :P
-
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/155/360422572_fd052703d4.jpg)
-
Hrm...the discussion so far has remained pretty civil.
If it keeps derailing I'll lock, but for now, it seems to be petering out.
-
No problems with the civility of the thread, but I'm not particularly interested in yet another Demopublican debate.
-
So don't look at it until it changes to another subject?
-
How will he know unless he looks?
-
He could ask a participant?
-
How likely is it to re-rail from a Demopublican debate though? 0 > probability of that.
-
Obviously not <0, as it's already happened.
-
I cry a single tear
like this
:(
But let it go down in history that we had a civilized, fairly even discussion about race and racism, and it only got locked because it went OT.
-
For shame you guys.................for shame.
-
Personally, I wouldn't have considered 4 posts on the matter in 6 pages as 'off topic', though the picture of a train wreck didn't help, so I agree with GB, it was going well for a while,