True. But when searched whites are more likely to have contraband. That’s the issue. To me you either treat people the same or you don’t. You either search people for reasons that aren’t racial or you search everyone every time. To me that’s the only fair way to do things. Because it’s not looking at the individual with that as you’ve said.
Maybe a poor choice of words but research shows Tyrone is less likely to get called than Steve. Same thing with black women. Again to me an issue worth looking at why that is.
I don’t think it’s this simple. The GOP is and has been for quite a while now almost completely white male. Democrats have more diversity but it’s not an even split or even close to it.
To me anything we do that makes things more equal for people based on factors like race or sex they cannot control has typically been a good thing. But like I said going the opposite way with it doesn’t work at all. It’s a balance and you have to be careful with policies and rules and all that so you aren’t creating something that pushes the needle the other way.
Lol. He was still fired for kneeling no doubt about it and then blackballed by the league. Because I guess that’s disrespectful to the troops?
Meanwhile the actual President is shitting on the POW’s, acting generals, former generals, etc and that’s not being disrespectful. That one don’t make sense to me.
Exactly. However, in an inner city the majority of people who cops arrest or question will be minorities because they are the overwhelming majority, combined with a very high crime rate. If cops in white neighborhoods are not arresting and questioning white people at the same rate it’s more because of the lack of crime and not race.
Ironically, it’s an Irish name. Then you have Tyrone Power. But, one could argue a black man named Steven would get a call before a white man named Antonio or Jesus.
It’s not and the effects of racism play a part but blacks will always be a minority.
True. But it’s undeniable he was fired and blackballed for this protest alone. It wasn’t his lack of QB skills. Probably should have just talked shit on generals and POW’s. May have won the Presidency.
If only he could have done this when the guidance changed and before his supporters went nuts about how it was mind control or something? Might be too late to backtrack on something as simple as following your own government guidelines when you had your Vice President in the Mayo Clinic without a mask on.
I would almost–ALMOST–pay to see that train wreck.
I agree with your sentiment on BLM the organization. However, given my personal assessment of Trump’s track record, I think it is a stretch to say he grasps these nuances of the impending conversation. It’s hard for me to tell for sure, since his communication is so disjointed I find it hard to follow. But as I generally consider a person’s communicative ability (written or verbal) to be a reflection of their ability to think, that’s what I believe.
Of course I definitely recognize that it isn’t true in all cases, but I am speaking to the platitude that “people don’t take you seriously unless you can communicate your point of view well”.
I think Californiagrown was talking about how Trump chose to communicate this position, which I do happen to agree with (even though I agree to a large extent with Trump’s position on BLM the organization).
Sure, I can understand that. But I don’t consider it a quibble honestly. State governors and the POTUS have very different scopes of authority and limits IMO.
A law and order POTUS still couldn’t do most of the things Trump wants within a state, since that is the purview and responsibility of the governor until aid is requested. And I do not consider sending active duty troops against civilians appropriate in any sense (which is something DT has been vocal about).
I absolutely agree with this post. With a caveat or two…First I believe that the term has been “weaponized” from its original intent to describe a phenomenon. This weaponization is meant to for exactly what you said here in your post. It is effective for the same reason it was created: in order to talk about a phenomenon you need a way to describe it. When you make the description a weapon you change the nature of the discussion (for the worse).
Second, I think it is real (in the descriptive sense). We have a very close family friend of my father’s who is black and has lived in the inner city most of his life. PhD. Teaches mathematics. Educator. We’ve gone to his daughter’s wedding, he went to our church for a while, etc.etc. Blue dog democrat, not progressive. Grew up in the 50s/60s in Mississippi and Chicago, so he was there for '68.
When you talk about the idea of privilege with him it’s very interesting, because he makes a very persuasive case for it, and I have to say I agree in principle.
BUT–and this is the flip side–he doesn’t treat it as a weapon, so the discussion is fruitful. I will never feel guilty about who I am, and in that context I absolutely despise the term because it is used exactly how you said.
The problem with privilege is the people who bring it up don’t know what the real implications are and in fact, end up agreeing with conservatives. Here is a list of privileges that supposedly white people will more likely have:
A father and mother who are married thus, a father who is present.
Parents who are not convicts.
Educated parents.
One or both parents work.
One or both parents is more likely to work in a profession.
Not living in a violent, crime infested neighborhood.
Went to a school that can actually meet state standards.
These are things that blacks are less likely to have than whites. OK, I won’t argue that as long as we recognize that not all whites have those privileges and some blacks do. So now what? It would seem to me that the answer is, if those things are predictors for success, then it would be a good idea for blacks to start doing them. Which is what Republicans tend to say; the whole pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
But, is BLM or Al Sharpton or Antifa or whoever, actually putting a plan into place to make those things be the norm and not the exception in the inner cities? We know that BLM is actually against the idea of the traditional nuclear family, and fathers in general, (since they are anti patriarchy and masculinity).
Some people have an issue with the pull yourself up talk but, we all have to pull ourselves up. Very few people get everything they want handed to them and some things can’t be bought. Your father can pull all the strings he wants to get you into medical school but you won’t become a surgeon if you don’t have the talent and work ethic to take advantage of it. Even with those privileges you still have to put the work in to be a success. Some have to work harder than others and crying about it won’t change that. So again, what’s the point of recognizing privilege when you still have to work to be successful? If your mother is an addict and your father is in prison, what do you want? You still have to work to succeed. Or do you want a pass when it comes to doing well in school? A pass when it comes to behavior? A pass when it comes to trying? Or do you just want an excuse for not even trying.
I understand if you aren’t raised a certain way it will be harder to pull yourself up but unless inner city residents decide that they want to have those privileges (and the reward for those privileges is: you have responsibilities, accountability and pay taxes) then there is no point in even trying to help. And this is why nothing will really change. Who wants to take on the task of creating a cultural and social change in the ghetto? Because in the end, if we want inner city residents to have those privileges, they will need to be imposed.
You think there are many Police Officers out there saying to themselves, “Hey, there’s a black guy; I’m going to search him.”?
It could be that in the neighborhood with more blacks, two young, black folks got shot last week, there were 13 shots fired calls, there was a robbery, and there were multiple assaults. Lots of people are out walking, so the Police step out with and ask to search lots of people in an attempt to further investigation into the aforementioned incidents.
The white guy’s neighborhood had three loud music calls, and a domestic that resulted in an arrest. There’s no reason for the Police to be stepping out with residents of that neighborhood…except for the guy smoking weed in the park. One search=one charge.
Yes? No? Maybe? The LAPD study if I remember right had blacks 4 or 5 times more likely to be searched and Mexicans I want to say 2 or 3 more times likely. And in those stops at least from that period more contraband was found with white people. Its been a while since I looked at that so details may have been wrong think it was around a year long study or info from driving stops.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. You don’t think race or religion plays into how people perceive and treat people? I think a lot of Americans were treated way differently after 9/11. A lot of Americans were treated differently after Pearl Harbor.
I’m by no means saying all cops are bad or anything at all. But to act like race is going to play no possible role seems like quite a stretch. No I don’t think the vast majority of cops say there’s a black guy I’m going to search him anymore than I think the vast majority of cops kill people. But it would seem hard to argue that some don’t.
We had these debates as well with security and searches for airlines back in the day. No need to search that 60 year old woman she doesn’t appear Arabic.
While I agree with you that the largest impact changes will come from cultural improvements, we need to do the work to eliminate any disadvantages imposed upon the black community that are not stemming from those cultural deficiencies.
Things like policing, rent policies, lending to minorities need changes to make it so people are treated as equals (which I think should be the ultimate goal).
I think we are a long way away from things like closing academic achievement gaps, wealth gaps, etc… Those may never close IMO. If they do, it is my opinion that cultural change is needed. I have gotten tired of hearing the politicians talk about why the last program failed to close the gaps, when it is obvious that it just wasn’t going to work as it didn’t address the root causes of the problem.
Will any of that get inner city kids reading at grade level? If the cops did not shoot one person in Chicago last year, how would the city have been any different?
