Printable View
I'm not trying to start a heated debate here. I have my strong opinions, but I do believe that the rioting, looting, arson, and blocking of traffic is absolutely ridiculous. Regardless of the indictment, there are better ways to protest and I feel like their choice is just strengthening the stereotype.
Yep
From my understanding of the background (which probably isn't great as I'm viewing it through the lens of a British media) I think it's understandable but not justifiable. I can see how people's anger builds up to the point where they riot and, at that point, arguments of logic or justifiability (if there is such a word) don't really cut much ice with them.
We had a similar round of riots over here a couple of years ago following the killing of Mark Duggan. In fact the whole scenario was very similar: years of growing divide between the rich and poor (with an aproximate but not exact correlation to race), apparent inequality of the exercise of police powers, black teenager gets shot by police under controversial circumstances, the investigation finds in favour of the police but is opaque enough to leave room for accusations of a whitewash, everyone starts burning down the local co-op. In both occasions the parents of the teenager in question condemn the investigation but also condemn the rioting and call for peace.
Personally I'm an advocate of civil disobediance (and potentially illegal action if necessary) in response to governmental failure to act on injustice. But I think that disobediance can be far more effective (and, I would argue, moral) if it's intelligently targetted. So I supported the guy from fathers for justice who climbed Big Ben, or the guys who buried themselves to prevent the Newbury by pass. But burning down your city centre to highlight racially inequitable behaviour by the police doesn't represent intelligent targetting to me, it doesn't represent any targetting at all.
But when you really get down to the facts, it does not not comes down to race. No matter the race combination, the officer was protecting his own life. If you were that officer in that situation, would you not shot someone to save your own life.
I wholeheartedly cannot say that I understand the entire situation since I was not there and have not been following the media very closely. But I come from a law enforcement background where the most important thing is going home to your family at night. The officer felt he had to use deadly force to protect himself. I am not going to Monday morning quarterback this anymore than it has been. But that is my opinion on the situation.
It a difficult one, i don't agree with the looting and rioting e.t.c, but i guess it come from helplessness, what other action could they take that would get them noticed?Quote:
I have my strong opinions, but I do believe that the rioting, looting, arson, and blocking of traffic is absolutely ridiculous. Regardless of the indictment, there are better ways to protest and I feel like their choice is just strengthening the stereotype.
I am not sure how you can say that, where are all the White kids getting killed by Police Officers?Quote:
But when you really get down to the facts, it does not not comes down to race.
There are plenty of good police forces, and good officers, i don't want to attack the police as many of them do a great and vital job but to say that there is not a problem amongst certain forces and officers with race i think is an attempt to re-write history.
Now i am not saying this officer was overtly racist, but there is a conditioning in the media in the UK and US that tells us that young black men are dangerous.
We have similar problems over here and if you ask people in the black community they will tell you without fail that young black males are far more likely to be targeted by police particularly in poorer urban areas.
In London for instance the Police are around 30 times more likely to use stop and search powers against Black and Asian people than white people but only 3% of these stop & searches actually lead to an arrest, that is a massive discrepancy.
Personally i think there is a fear problem, many officers have a fear of what they see as aggressive black males, this leads them to look to use lethal force to protect themselves even in situations where the actual threat wasn't high, but the perceived threat is.
Does it really matter? the stereo type is already entrenched anyway.Quote:
I feel like their choice is just strengthening the stereotype.
To try and pretend this is nothing to do with race i think is naive, but on the other hand i wouldn't say that this is particularly about racism in its traditional sense, which is normally about abuse, its more about fear and probably lack of integration. I bet the officer who Shot Micheal Brown doesn't know many black people.
It is true that law enforcement use some prejudice in their tactics. However I fail to see the racism in this call. This officer was responding to a call regarding a theft from a liquor store. Brown matched the description of the suspect from the theft (because he was the suspect). So where does the racism occur in this call? It didn't.
Now if the situation were a little different, say the officer randomly stopped this guy on the street for no reason and then a shooting took place. Sure I could see him as being targeted for being of opposite race.
You also have to take into consideration the statistics of the town. According to Wikipedia it is 67% African American. So majority of the town is African American. Which would make sense that majority of the people who are arrested or stopped by police in that town will be African American. I cant confirm this fact, but I heard that majority (or all) of the PD is made up of White officers. So perhaps the town is being racist by hiring only or majority white officers. Then tying this back into the Michael Brown trial, you can hold this one officer accountable for being racist because he was hired by a department of mostly white officers in a mostly African American city.
And trust me, there are PLENTY of white officers shooting and killing white citizens. And yes, it does make it to the media, but it doesnt make it to international news or get as big as the Ferguson case did because people don't care.
One thing that really gets me upset is when people bash and hate on the police. Because one day these people will need help and who do they turn to for help, the police. You are not one of these people and I appreciate that. You are right, police serve a vital role in society, and there are plenty of good police out there. My father is one of them. So it hits home when people say that cops are bad people. /rant
I am not even sure if my last post made any sense because its 3am and I think I was just ranting. Good night world.
It made sense, and you have some good points.
Firstly i certainly wouldn't want people to blame the Police for all this its a societal problem, and i agree there are plenty of good officers and i wouldn't want to make blanket statements about them.
If you reread my post i wasn't saying that this was a racist killing, but comes out of a culture of fear in particular of young black males. What i was saying is that there is a racial element to it and it is to do with race, but that is different than it being racist.Quote:
However I fail to see the racism in this call.
i am looking from very far away at it but it does look like an over reaction to a theft.
In the UK our standard Police officers do not have guns, and yet they are still able to apprehend criminals. I just think as he wasn't armed the likely threat to your life as a police officer is small and you should use proportional force.
It was Fear that drove the officer to shoot, and imho that fear is apart of our culture and society (as much in the UK as the US) that does see young black males as dangerous, more dangerous then other potential criminals.
It would be great to see some examples, as you are right we don't hear about these.Quote:
And trust me, there are PLENTY of white officers shooting and killing white citizens. And yes, it does make it to the media, but it doesnt make it to international news or get as big as the Ferguson case did because people don't care.
I'm not sure I'd even go as far as to say that this particular shooting was driven by race borne fear (though I equally wouldn't discount the possibility - truth is I don't know).
Rather I'd say that the riots themselves aren't really a reaction to the shooting at all. Rather, they're a reaction to a real or percieved inequality in the way the police (and, indeed, society in general) behave towards people of different races. Given what DClamp is said about the population being majority black but the police force being majority white it sounds to me like that inequity is very real in this case.
I think one of the interesting thing about both this and the Mark Duggan case is that in both cases the families have condemned the violence. This gives weight to my belief that this reaction doesn't really have anything to do with the shooting incident because if it did the rioters would respect the families wishes and go home. Rather the rioters have their own built grievences and the shootings merely provided reason to vent them.
Earlier this year I completed a 16 week/45 hour class called Citizens Police Academy.
In one of the classes they showed us a dash cam that really and truly looked like two officers MURDERED a man by shooting him in the back... The video was not for the weak in the stomach..... You really wanted to be on the jury and send these two to prison...
Then they showed us another video from a different dash cam/different angle that started several seconds earlier. It showed that the suspect shot first from a few feet away and nearly blew the head off one of the officers.... Once a bad guy fires a weapon - all bets are off.
Had it not been for the second camera, things would have been so much different.
Are those like the cameras that are mounted actually on the officer himself, either on there helmet or jacket?Quote:
dash cam
As i am all for them, they should help protect the officer from malicious claims from the public and also protect the public in those cases an officer uses obsessive force.
Dash Cams are mounted on the police car's dashboard...
Body Cams are located on the police officers person...approx where a shirt pocket would be.
Ah, that's the difference between "dash" and "body". I get it now. All this time I thought the dash cam was the one on your spice rack.
I don't believe that this particular case was race based, but the reaction was, and it happens to work. I would say that if there was no civil disobedience we'd not have advanced much since the 40s. Sure, we'd like it to all be orderly and restrained, but there is a terrific diversity in the human race. If there had been NO reaction to this shooting, then nothing would have changed. Now, it's hard to say what changes will come, but there will certainly be changes. Racism in the US has gone from the overt to the covert.
I think the rioting is worse than the original problem
From what my local media station has told me, the unarmed black male stole cigars from a convenience store, the police were called, the unarmed black male attempted to arm himself while going for the officers gun, and the officer shot an unnecessary amount of rounds into the black males body/head. The black male was also a known criminal or "gang banger".
The officer should be punished for the over-kill, but the means seem justifiable, especially if Missouri has a good self-defense law. If I was carrying a gun, and someone reached for my gun, I would consider that an act against my life, and would naturally react in a similar manner. Especially if the other person was larger in size than me.
From what my media station said, he shot 4 rounds, paused, and shot another 6 rounds. So also depending on the police issued hand guns in that area, he might have reloaded, which makes it obvious over-kill triggered by anger, fear, or some emotion.
Both parties are in the wrong, it is sad that the criminal had to lose his life, but the rioting is much worse than what the officer did, I think all of the protesters should be arrested and charged for public destruction and attempted man slaughter.
Yes, the officer could have already been afraid simply because he was a large black male. It was said that Brown tried to take the officers gun away from him and that Brown slammed the door on the officers face. Now if I were in that situation, like Steve said, all bets are off. Brown was a thief, non-compliant with a police officer, and then assaulted the officer and tried to take his weapon. If that was a white guy who tried to steal the gun from the officer you think the officer would just give him a smack on the wrist? Absolutely not.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
The number one rule when dealing with police is to comply with their orders and everything will flow smoothly. Obviously it comes down to the circumstances, if you just killed 20 people and comply with the officers you are still going to get your face smashed into the ground.
Thats awesome that you took that class. I think more people need to take these Citizen Academies to really learn what police do and learn why police do the things they do. As far as the good cops go, everything they do has a reason behind it and it usually to keep everyone safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve R Jones
Dash and Body cameras are rolling out very quickly throughout the US. And I am making a pretty penny on the stock market because of it. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Steve R Jones
Additionally, Unruly protests are one thing, but burning down 25 businesses to "prove a point". How about we go to those peoples houses and burn them down to prove our point. And shooting at the fire department while trying to put the fires out. Uncalled for. The fire department refused to respond to any calls for service in Ferguson for most of the night. It wasn't until the late hours of the morning when they were able to come in and start putting out what was left.
All this time I've been hearing "18 year old" and thinking he's a kid...aka young man.... I didn't realize till I heard it on the new last night that "at the time of his death, he was 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m) tall and weighed 292 lb (132 kg)."
On the other hand - Officer Darren Wilson is 6'4" and 210 pounds.
I can see wanting to have a hand gun around if I had to tangle with someone 82 pounds heavier that I am.... just sayin.
After some more reading (of the material they released from the investigation) As far as i can see it this is the problem.Quote:
It was said that Brown tried to take the officers gun away from him and that Brown slammed the door on the officers face. Now if I were in that situation, like Steve said, all bets are off.
The officers statement and (and the witness statements that support him) directly contradict the statements of other witnesses on the side of Michael Brown.
The other evidence seems negligible which means it all just come down to who's version of events you believe.
Most people fairly rationally would tend to believe the Police Officer, the black community in the US understandably considering there history with the Police don't believe a word the police say.
Thats why i would like to see more of these body cams, they would stop a lot this and we would get a much clearer idea of what actually happened in these events
dclamp's last post says it all. They do it because they know they will get away with it. Saint Michael Brown died for my right to steal a flat screen TV, block traffic and burn down someone's barber shop.
Where I come from the word "Asian" usually refers to those from the far east - China, Korea, Taiwan, etc. You know, the people who actually work their collective asses off, get good grades, rarely cause any trouble and consequently are rarely stopped and searched. Asia in an incomprehensibly huge place with an equally diverse population. Saying someone is "Asian" could literally mean anyone from Istanbul to Hokkaido; from Siberia to Sri Lanka. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when Brits use the term "Asian" they usually mean "Muslim" but do it because they dare not offend anyone's fragile sensibilities that could cause the kind of troubles the French have had to endure lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Fair enough, i forgot that Asian is a rather broad term which can be interpreted differently by different people.Quote:
Asia in an incomprehensibly huge place with an equally diverse population. Saying someone is "Asian" could literally mean anyone from Istanbul to Hokkaido;
I will happily correct you as are you are wrong, if i had meant Muslim i would have said Muslim. I actually grew up and went to school with a lot of kids from a Muslim background so find your insinuation a bit insulting.Quote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when Brits use the term "Asian" they usually mean "Muslim" but do it because they dare not offend anyone's fragile sensibilities that could cause the kind of troubles the French have had to endure lately.
The term Asian in the UK normally refers to those of Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage as that is traditionally the places where we have had by far the highest immigration from in Asia. It has nothing to do with religion what so ever.
Which is where the US has traditionally had its highest immigration from in Asia which kind of proves my point.Quote:
Where I come from the word "Asian" usually refers to those from the far east
I am surprised you picked up on such a minor part of my post.
I'll back NSA on that. Brits have tended to use Asian to mean South Asian (India, Pakistan etc) since long before the recent frictions with Islam. It has no religious connetations at all.
An interesting point, though, is that just as in the US Asians (in your case Orientals) are typically regarded as hard working, in the UK Asians (in our case South Asians) are also typically regarded as hard working. That hasn't stopped us looking down on them and sneering at them though. Hell, we sneer at them because they're hard working, portraying them as a bunch of corner shop owners and dodgy restaurant owners. And they do get stopped and searched in numbers that are way out of proportion to ther population or crime rate.
I think both the US and the UK have a pretty poor track record in their of treatment of religious and racial minorities. We can start lobbing accusations back and forth across the Atlantic if you like but the truth is we both suck on that front.
This doesn't excuse the rioting but it does go some way towards explaining it.
Our track record isn't as long, but it isn't very good, either. We packed a whole lot of bad into a short window.
A short window, certainly, but it's relative. At what point would most people consider the racial civil rights infringements to decay to a point where it was (is?) only a minority which are truly racist?
The 60's is generally considered the time that the civil rights movement really became a movement. Being born in the late 60's I cannot recall any period where there has been any kind of institutionalized segregation.
I'd phrase it slightly differently, I'd say extremely racist. Someone who just feels a bit nervous around black people is "truly" racist but they're not "extremely" racist and I don't think we'd regard them as a problem. I'm really just being pedandtic there though and other than that I'd agree with you. It's only a very small minority who are extremely racist and I doubt very much the policeman went out that morning thinking "I'm gonna shoot a black man today because he's black and I hate 'em". I don't know but I can believe that an element of fear born out of a low level prejudice might have played into the snap decision to pull (and keep pulling) the trigger in the heat of the moment but I don't think that qualifies him as "a racist". Or maybe it played no part at all. The only person who knows is the police officer and I actually doubt he really knows either - he probably simply reacted in a moment.Quote:
it was (is?) only a minority which are truly racist?
The thing is, though, that I don't believe the rioting is a response to extreme racism. This is a response to the low level, mostly subsumed prejudices that all of us carry round with us every day. Those prejudices do have a very real effect on the lives that people lead and the unfortunate truth (on both sides of the pond) is that that effect is far more detremental to the lives of the black community than it is to the white community. I think it's a mistake to blame the white community for that (it's just human nature and a product of history) but none the less resentment builds up and eventually some incident provides an excuse to vent that resentment.
The worst thing is that I don't see a real solution to this. I don't believe those prejudices will ever really go away. They may shift to different targets but they're part of human nature. A healthy fear of those we don't truly know is an evolutionary defence mechanism and is hardwired in. Increased integration would obviously help but how do you achieve that. Due to the very nature of the prejudices we're trying to address, self segregation happens naturally. And any attempt to impose integartion is bound to meet with resentment from all communities.
Incidentally, how does the choking in NYC play into all of this. Over here it's being portrayed as pretty close to murder but I'd be curious to hear what you guys on the other side of the pond think.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1651665/bil...rs-every-year/Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
While we still have school that we can easily label as White and Black then we still have a problem (in the UK too) these labels just should not exist. It shows we are teaching Kids even at school to segregate themselves by keeping them away form kids of different backgrounds.Quote:
white school
black school
You are going to have to post to a more reliable news source then Fox news for me to take that seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by dclamp
Those statistics he uses are just a joke, i only have to look at the first statistic
"Police Killings of Blacks down 70% in last 50 years"
Really to go back 50 years to Civil right era US to say killing are going down, what about say the last 10 - 15 years? why not give a real comparison of modern day america.
Have you seen the Video? because i saw it, and i am still astounded that the police officer hasn't been arrested.Quote:
Incidentally, how does the choking in NYC play into all of this. Over here it's being portrayed as pretty close to murder but I'd be curious to hear what you guys on the other side of the pond think.
The Ferguson case, had very little evidence and while it exposed a problem it was the right decision considering the evidence that the officer was found not guilty, whatever peoples personal opinions are on the case.
The Eric Garner thing was on Video as clear as day, and it looked like straight out Murder to me. I don't see how anyone can defend it.
I think a large part of the problem is racism on the part of the rioters. There seems to be an automatic assumption on their part that because the cop was white and the guy he killed was black, that the only possible reason for the shooting was that the victim was black. The fact that there seem to be very valid reasons for him using his gun are completely ignored - they simply can't see beyond the issue of race. That, to me, is racism.
It was exactly the same with the Zimmerman case. They ignored the fact that this giant of a man was repeatedly smashing Zimmerman's head off the pavement. All they saw was race.
On a related note, I'd be interested to know how realistic our American friends think TV shows like Southland are. I remember being appalled at a few areas of that, one of which was where a middle-aged black woman sheltered a black teenager - who was wanted for murdering another black teenager - in her home when he was being chased by police, simply because he was black and the cops weren't, and they were therefore the enemy. Does that kind of attitude genuinely exist, or is it just for dramatic effect?
No and I really should have made the effort by now.Quote:
Have you seen the Video?
It's an interesting take on it but there's some truth there. As I've said, though, I don't think they're really rioting in response to this event. Rather they're rioting in response to a pent up frustration. At that point it doesn't really matter whether this shooting was justified or not, the fact that it loosely fits the bill is enough of a spark to kick things off. There's no rationality to this.Quote:
racism on the part of the rioters
I don't see how this is racism, they maybe wrong to riot, but for it to be racism on part of the rioters they would essentially have to be making it all up and there is no problem between police and black youths.Quote:
I think a large part of the problem is racism on the part of the rioters.
If you or anyone on here says there isn't a problem then you obviously just don't know anyone of colour.
Personally i think, there is a danger of White people just seeing the rioting and condemning it without actually looking at what they are protesting about to closely and just labeling all the protesters rioters.
hmm i wouldn't conflate the two, Zimmerman himself hasn't covered himself in glory since the case, and in the UK at least Zimmerman would have almost certainly been jailed for Murder.Quote:
It was exactly the same with the Zimmerman case.
Well in America in particular it is not that long ago since slavery, and black people only got the right to Vote around 1965 that's only 50 years ago. How are black people supposed not to see race?Quote:
All they saw was race.
Also have you seen the Eric Garner Video?
No, that's not what I said at all. My point is that they seem to be incapable of looking at it as anything other than a matter of race. Their stance is that it is inherently racist for a white cop to shoot a black teenager, and that's patently untrue. Their insistence on seeing this through a prism of race is what makes them racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
It's also worth wondering why there is always so much attention when a white person shoots a black one, when that represents a tiny minority of the violent deaths of young black men. By far the majority of such killings will be perpetrated by other black men - where's the outrage about that?
I disagree with that completely. From my understanding of the facts, our self-defence laws - which are really very weak compared to American ones - would have seen him acquitted. If he'd been tried according to the edited version of events - including his conversations with dispatch which were hacked, edited and played out of order to paint him as a racist looking for trouble - then it might have been a different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
God, no. Why would I want to watch a video of someone dying? That's horrific.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Yeah, that's probably very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
But this begs the question: what is racism?
By definition, racism is the belief that one race is superior to another. It has been extended to include - perhaps justifiably so - injustices against black people based solely on skin color.
But is it racism when a 'lady clutches her purse in fear when walking down the street and encounters a black kid coming towards her'? Firstly, this little narrative tells us nothing about the situation, and simply perpetuates the notion that any injustice - real or otherwise - should be judged solely by the color of ones skin.
Based on recent events and history, I would have to be considered a racist because I would steer well clear of areas where the majority of people are black, as the media perpetrates the fact (sic) that white people are racist, and that black people are willing and active to do damage and harm to right this injustice. Further, the government and administration of the United States endorses the 'protests', as well as various societal leaders (the usual suspects) and sports players.
What drives the wedge of racism further and further, is the constant statements that these people are protesting legitimate issues and are good people: we see these same good people looting, burning, spreading violence throughout the community. And these are the good people?! The whole injustice argument stems from the fact that good, innocent people are being constantly victimized because of the color of their skin. Which is it? Show us these good innocent people, because there seems to be none, here, except those people who have had their houses, businesses and property destroyed.
At some point, white people will not ignore the demonstrable violence that purports to be the voice of the black person and will take the statement at face value: black people are violent and are going to get the whites for their crimes. The resulting fear and discrimination will be thrown under the banner of racism, when it is a thug-like culture has pervaded and poisoned black societies. It is this culture that is being discriminated against. Call it racism, if you like, but the end result is that it harms black people to a far greater extent to ignore the realities in society.
I don't think there's any implication that you should take some sort of morbid pleasure in it but if we're going to comment on whether it was right, wrong, racially motivated or just normal policing then it probably behoves us to be as informed as possible.Quote:
Why would I want to watch a video of someone dying?
Personally I just watched it and here are my take aways.
1. I didn't see anything about it that would imply racism beyond the fact that Garner was black and the police weren't. Notably Garner himself doesn't raise race as an issue although at least one bystander does.
2. The reasons for the arrest seem highly dubious. A policeman is accusing him of selling cigarettes to someone. Garner and the bystanders that you can hear are saying he just broke up a fight. Either way, neither of these things is an arrestable offence as far as I'm aware.
3. There was absolutely no aggression on Garners part. He's not threatening in any way.
4. The policeman who grabs him from behind does so for no obvious reason that I could discern and does so in an extremely aggressive manner. I guess if you're going to grab someone then you're going to be aggressive as you want to contain them before they can respond but I also understand police are trained to do this safely, in which case the training obviously failed in this case.
5. Even after being grabbed I couldn't see any evidence of Garner resisting. When they tell him to put his arms behind his back he appears to comply. However the choke hold is clearly maintained throughout.
6. The fact that he is struggling to breath is pretty obvious from hearing his voice which becomes low and gargled. Anyone, trained or otherwise, could hear that he can't breath.
I'm not sure whether race played a part in this. Was he being accused because he was black? Would they have grabbed him to arrest him if he'd been white? I don't think we can know. It was definitely a horrendous and utterly unnecessary over-reaction though. It's safe to say that if you or I had done this we might or might not be up for murder (which requires pre-meditation) but we'd definitely be up for manslaughter and if this video evidence was available (which it was) I fail to see how we wouldn't be found guilty.
I'd be hesitant to tie the Garner event in to race but I would definitely condemn the policeman's acquittal. He should have gone to jail.
DD, I think Garner was the victim, not the officer. Have I go that wrong? Anyway...
Yeah, that was pretty much how I saw it. Race may have played a part but I didn't see anything in the video to indicate it. It looked more like an act of dominance to me - which is just as bad and quite disturbing if that's the mindset a police officer carries.Quote:
it was more of a police officer wanting to demonstrate his power.
Assuming her reaction would have been different if the kid were white then yes, it is. It's a reaction based on prejudice about someone race - that's racism. There is an important thing to bear in mind here, though: Fear is not rational and it rarely accommodates our logical, higher minded thinking. If the lady you're describing were taking part in this debate she would be just as likely to be mourning for Garner and condemning the policeman as she would be to be condemning Garner and singing the policeman's praise. Our prejudices (and we ALL have them) are borne out of an evolutionary imperative, we cannot deny them. What we can do most of the time is choose to overrule them - but not in a moment of fear. To me the difference between a dangerous bigot and a normal right minded person isn't that the latter has no prejudices, it's that the latter recognises those prejudices for what they are, largely irrational generalisations. The bigot holds them to be unquestioned truths.Quote:
is it racism when a 'lady clutches her purse in fear when walking down the street and encounters a black kid coming towards her'?
But you are making an assumption - the same assumption - that simply because the kid in this scenario is black, then the lady (presumably white?) is guilty of racism. without knowing the facts, as Ferguson demonstrates, by simply looking at the skin color, and an outcome, we know that racism is at play.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Further, prejudice and racism are different things. I remember way back when, following the Brixton riots, having a debate about racism and prejudice in Britain. While such events may fuel racism, racism is a basic understanding that one race is inferior to another, whereas prejudice is assigning attributes, typically negative, (albeit irrational or illogical) where there is no necessary evidence to support it.
No I didn't, I did the exact opposite. I said that if her reaction would have been different if the kid were white then it would be racism. I didn't explictely say that if her reaction wouldn't have been different then it wouldn't be racism because I felt that would have been stating the bleedin' obvious. You set up a scenario in which the woman knows just 2 things about the kid, 1. he's running towards her and 2. he's black. If her reaction is wholly informed by the the fact that he's running towards her then it's not racist. If, however, it is wholly or partly informed by the fact that he's black then it is racist.Quote:
But you are making an assumption
Just to set some common ground for terms, I'm afraid a disagree with you're definition for racism as setting one race as superior to another. That's certainly a definition of racism but you'll find plenty of others including discrimination, prejudice based on race and a whole bunch more. They all have one element in common, though, and it's that element I choose to use as my own definition: making a judgement about an individual based on their race. The only difference between racism and prejudice is that racism must be driven by race whereas prejudice can be driven by gender, religion, hair colour... anything really. If you're uncomfortable with that definition then we can use the phrase "racially prejudice" if you'd rather but it doesn't change the debate, it's just semantics.
Bottom line, if you look at a black man about whom you know nothing more than that he's black, and you make judgements about him based on preconcieved ideas about his race, then that is racism. Those preconcieved ideas may or may not be justified, you're still applying a generalisation to an individual. Those preconcieved ideas may be positive or negative, they're still potentially damaging generalisations. And, of course, this applies just as much to the generalisations you make about white people or any other ethnicity.
Quote:
Based on recent events and history, I would have to be considered a racist because I would steer well clear of areas where the majority of people are black
Well you are certainly displaying some racist behavior, or racially prejudiced behavior to go with FD's description.Quote:
What drives the wedge of racism further and further, is the constant statements that these people are protesting legitimate issues and are good people: we see these same good people looting, burning, spreading violence throughout the community. And these are the good people?!
At some point, white people will not ignore the demonstrable violence that purports to be the voice of the black person and will take the statement at face value: black people are violent and are going to get the whites for their crimes.
Wow, so while we can't judge all police officers on the actions of a few we can judge all black people? surely it is possible to have perfectly law abiding peacefully protesting black people AND rioters rather than to see all people as the same?
If find it a bit Sad that you view black people as generally violent.
Again what this shows me is you just don't know any black people. It is sad really that we have the kind of segregation in modern society.
That was exactly my point. The system allows or encourages segregation, and trust me there are other ways. My school growing up was at least 40% non-white and it was a good school. The Catchment area was changed and therefore the student mix changed.Quote:
Did you see what the percentage of color kids were at the school that just closed down? 97%! That was strictly people segregating themselves by purchasing homes in that school district. There's no beating around the bush with that school, it was a black school.
Is that really there stance, from my understanding the grievance is this kind of prejudice happens all the time, and these recent events have just lit the touch paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
Its not about a white person killing a black person, it is about a white Police officer killing a black person that is what they are protesting against the perceived discrimination from the Police.Quote:
It's also worth wondering why there is always so much attention when a white person shoots a black one, when that represents a tiny minority of the violent deaths of young black men. By far the majority of such killings will be perpetrated by other black men - where's the outrage about that?
Err no Zimmerman was not on his own property, he went and approached the guy on essentially a public place and instigated a confrontation. Regardless of anything that went on after it would have been difficult for him legally to mount a self defense casein the UK. It was the stand your ground laws in the US that gave him legal protection.Quote:
I disagree with that completely. From my understanding of the facts, our self-defence laws - which are really very weak compared to American ones - would have seen him acquitted. If he'd been tried according to the edited version of events - including his conversations with dispatch which were hacked, edited and played out of order to paint him as a racist looking for trouble - then it might have been a different story.
You really should see it, i did not seek out to watch it it was actually on one of the late night news channels. Not so you can see someone die but so you can see in this case what a travesty of justice this is.Quote:
God, no. Why would I want to watch a video of someone dying? That's horrific.
Quote:
I'm in a limbo with the case of Eric Garner.
Eric Garner also has a long record of falsely searching and arresting perps, but at the same time everything looks to be in the confines of the law.
Wow, have you seen the video? if you take the Eric Garner as a completely separate stand alone issue and remove race from the conversation. You actually think what those Police officers did was ok?Quote:
It's one of those things where there is reasonable doubt
You think choking a man to death is a reasonable thing to do? remember at this point he has not been arrested or charged for anything? its like judge dread, Police as Judge, Jury and Executioner.
Why have a legal system at all if we are deciding peoples guilt and passing sentence with immediate effect.
That's my point - the only conditional you placed on the scenario is the color of skin. That the determination of racism is to change the color of the skin to determine a different outcome. If the outcome is different then, indeed, it is racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
But the reality is that you cannot change the circumstances, only examine the circumstances. This is what we fail to do with Ferguson. We play the 'if he had been white' game rather than look at the issues outside of race - the actual events. The actual events are denied because the white cop was, de-facto, racist.
Yet you completely miss the point, and demonstrate a high-horse condemnation. Have you had such discussions with you black associates? How does a black woman married to a white man have this 'conversation about racism' that society seems to want us to have? They don't need the sharptons and elitists telling us how to act, or how to talk, or what to say, or what not to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers