The lighter the skin, the shorter the prison term for Black women. Study.
Printable View
The lighter the skin, the shorter the prison term for Black women. Study.
I stumbled on this post and it seemed really apropos to where this thread has gone...
from kind of an interesting, similar discussion, actually. If you're curious: it's a reaction to a Richard Dawkins comment, similarly insensitive to context.
I found an interesting group who are "policing the police" in New Hampshire with organizations spreading up over the country to document police and judicial misconduct. All it takes is buying a police scanner (RadioShack), learning the codes, having a decent video recorder with good audio recording and being an observer which is entirely legal as long as you don't break any laws and are on public property.
https://www.copblock.org/
What CopBlock does is simply follow the police around with video recorders to record their interactions with the community and offer advice on constitutional rights to those who are stopped.
Take a look at their site and what they have observed and some of the complete overstepping of bounds in our country and corrupt and violent/brutal police conduct and ask yourself why is Sebastopol so special that it would never happen here. It was only a few years ago when 5 years ago when a young, 16 year black, unarmed, Sebastopol high school student was killed by the Sheriffs for no reason, and while they county admitted no "wrong doing", they settled and paid $1.75 million in damages, essentially admitting they were wrong. It can and did happen here.
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...NEWS/901130251
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I'm just blown away by those here in West County who have the naive concept we still live in the land of "freedom", but can't/won't look around at the complete destruction of those freedoms over the last 10 years, who have never read the "Patriot Act" which was sitting, already written in a drawer just waiting for the right opportunity to rush it through Congress, which low and behold happened just after Bush took office. It appears most citizens enjoy living in a culture of fear around here, are fine with police stings, entrapment, happy to have their genitals groped when going through the airport, are okay with having their phones and internet wiretapped without warrants or probable cause, the list goes on..
- This was written by Ben Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:
- Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.
- An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanack (1738): "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Here's another article regarding our creeping Police State..
https://www.alternet.org/rights/1511..._police_state/
America's Creeping Police State-Imperialism abroad is destroying what is left of our democracy at home. From warrantless wiretapping to warrantless door-busting, this is what a police state looks like.
orQuote:
“Was my son racially profiled in Sebastopol?”
How many people feel super strong about changing the title? There are a lot of folks viewing this thread. I am not sure the subject should be changed because when racial profiling is actually "proven" is extremely rare without such things as "Cop Watch" programs. If I was more set in my life financially, I would definitely take more time to go down to the city hall, start up or take part in other police cop watch programs, as Attila, I believe, or was it Miles or Erny Carpenter, who mentioned the police watch group that's already started in Sonoma County. I'm aware of it, get announcements for the meetings, but have not been able to attend, due to time constraints (ultimately money constraints - as I am Constrained to my computer here home where I work). Since I am on the computer a lot, this is where I find some time to take action. I have had, and so have many I know had story after story of events by people of color that sound a whole heck a lot like there was racial profiling or racial prejudice going on - but there were no witnesses, or ways to "prove" it. Patrick Brinton has stated at least 3 times that I am "accusing" the Sebastopol police Dept. of racial profiling. He uses the word "accusing" in at least 3 posts, the first of which wasQuote:
My son was racially profiled in Sebastopol on Main St.
the second time is:Quote:
You assert baldly in the title of the thread (a powerful message that accompanies every post in the thread) that your son was racially profiled. Not "might have been" but was. This is a direct accusation against the Sebastopol PD
and a third time:Quote:
The bottom line here is that to substantiate your accusation you have to show that your son was treated differently because of his color than an otherwise identical white kid, doing the same thing in the same place.
My title is not an accusation - as PBrinton makes it sound - like I'm filing a formal complaint with an accusation - that finally leads to a law suit. The title is an "OPINION". It is my opinion that my son was racially profiled at some point in being pulled over. Thanks to officer Weaver's account, we now know (which I did not, after my son was pulled over) that there was a victim that also gave a "description". What was the "description"? How did the cop know to check my son for the "description"? Yes, there are MANY variables involved in this whole incident, but as I've said before, I am not prepared to simply step down and say "oh, there's no proof, so I shouldn't say anything" especially when my entire family and many others I know that are brown or black skinned have had similar experiences - we cannot ever know for sure "WHY" it appears that more blacks are harassed than whites, without cameras or witnesses in place, and it's become common knowledge that there are more blacks / browns in jail than whites. Here's a recent article showing that there are more blacks in jail than there were slaves in 1850 https://www.laprogressive.com/law-an...prison-system/. Why is that? And for the second time, P Brinton, (Miles asked you earlier) if my son was not a suspect, than what was he?Quote:
Perhaps, but since there is no evidence that he was, and since the original accusation was against the officer and only expanded to the original victim when it became apparent that the first accusation did not hold water, it seems a stretch.
Patrick Brinton, Stop trying to silence people by applying legal standards that would apply to win a lawsuit, but do not have any relevance whatsoever to a public message board.
interesting question to ask. There really are two strong themes reflected in this thread, probably one reason why it's lived so long. You can see which theme resonates strongest with each reader. These two perspectives don't seem to me to arise from different ethics, either - as do many of the arguments on this board and other places; I think most people commenting here share the view that racism in our society is pervasive and a long-standing problem. But some are focusing on the "accusation" implied in the title, and resist having the police tarred by that implication. If you want to view that charitably, you can take it that those with that point of view find it such an abhorrent thing to be accused of that they don't want the accusation made without uncontrovertible evidence, and so won't let it go. The other posts are using this incident as a springboard to talk about larger issues and other similar occurrences, and seem way less concerned with parsing this encounter carefully.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sabrina:
As this thread progresses/drags on, belaboring the details of the specific incident seems pointless. The discussion hasn't turned toward vilification of the police; debate about how to view this exact incident seems a distraction.
I have made no attempt to silence anyone. I have simply stated my own opinions. The standards I have applied are not legal standards, but ethical standards, which I believe have relevance in every aspect of our lives.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by natalie:
Patrick Brinton
Do you prefer "allege"? You stated as a fact something that you had no evidence for that was derogatory against a police officer about his conduct in the line of duty. In other words you unjustly attacked his professional integrity. If you do not consider this to be something you should apologize for, that is your privilege. I have stated my opinion.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sabrina:
Then you should have said "I believe my son was racially profiled". And what do you mean, "at some point"? Either he was treated differently because he was black or he was not. I have asked you before, what different treatment do you think an otherwise identical white kid behaving identically would have received? Do you think he would not have been stopped? Even you do not allege any mistreatment during the encounter, so it is hard to see how our white kid would have been better treated in that respect, so it seems to be the fact that he was stopped that you are saying was discriminatory.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sabrina:
I am sorry, this is just getting silly. You seem to be just casting about for any reason to feel indignant about the incident. You can look at pretty much any set of circumstances and make them look suspicious by asking these kinds of questions. If you really want to understand police procedures, or how they choose who to stop and question and for what reasons, and how they communicate information to each other about crimes and suspects, go talk to the police about it. You could even join a ride-along program; perhaps you would start to understand the other sides of the issue. You might find that cops are people too, and are not some homogenous group that all act the same way. You might find that black people get stopped and questioned for perfectly good reasons sometimes, and just because a black person is stopped it does not necessarily mean he has been profiled. What would you have them do? Do you want them to refrain from stopping someone because he is black, even when they have good reason to?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sabrina:
Could we stipulate that for the purpose of this discussion nobody here (as afar as I know, and least of all me) denies that people of color are discriminated against on a daily basis, and that we have a huge distance still to go in the matter of relations between the races in this country. All that you say along these lines is true, and new evidence of the situation emerges every day. So we are in agreement on this. I feel that you are continuing to attempt to persuade me, and I do not need persuading.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sabrina:
However none of this has any bearing on my objection. If the thread had been on WaccoTalk, and titled appropriately, I would not have had any problem with it. You presented it it as a matter of immediate concern to the community, saying that one of its members had been racially profiled, and that is the aspect I addressed, and it would save time and space if we could confine ourselves to that in this thread. And no, I am not trying to silence anyone, as someone else alleged. I say talk all you want about it, but do it in the appropriate place and in an appropriate manner.
My very first post answered this question.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sabrina:
This thread is becoming repetitious. You have certainly had plenty of opportunity to make the case stated in your subject line, and in my opinion you have failed. I have no quarrel with your analysis of the experience of people of color in our society. However (once again) the fact that it happens a lot does not mean that it happened this time, and unless you have some actual evidence that it did, and not just questions, you have no right to say that it did.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:
Patrick Brinton
I am astonished. Do you really think that a majority of West County people feel this way? It is certainly not my impression. Maybe I do not get about enough.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by dysbtwn:
Patrick Brinton
This is an example of the logical fallacy known as the ad hominem attack--i.e., attacking the person rather than addressing the issues--in this case by making an insulting and manifestly untrue assumption about Patrick's motivation (that he is "trying to silence people").Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by natalie:
At the risk of redundancy, let's understand that, yes, racism is alive and well, and yes, cops commonly racially profile young black men among others. In some cases, racism is undeniably present, such as when racial epithets are used. But there was nothing about this case that comes anywhere near proving that Olembe was treated any differently because of his race. The fact that many cops are racist simply does not mean that every time a cop questions a black guy there's racism going on.
I know and like Sabrina, Olembe and their family. I understand that being upset, and having experienced indisputable racism in the past, could motivate someone to blurt out something that's worded in an unfortunate way. "My son was racially profiled" is a statement that goes beyond the data in this case; in other words, it's an accusation which, while possibly being true, is just as likely to be false, and is simply unsupported by the facts that have been mentioned.
So the question is, "How certain should we be before we publicly accuse someone of doing something bad?" I would argue that the Golden Rule suggests that we should be very certain indeed before publicly accusing anyone of something bad. Most of us, including me, have been falsely accused of something at one time or another, and it's no fun, nor does it improve relations between people. No social problem, including racism, will be improved by insulting, false accusations, only worsened. Sabrina's a good person, but in this case her emotions trumped her sense of justice, empathy, and logic. Framing the issue of profiling in this case as a question rather than an accusation (and it was undeniably an accusation) would have been more constructive.
Patrick, Dixon,
You approach this matter as if it has somehow been proven that in no part of the incident in question Olembe was detained (albeit briefly, professionally and politely/respectfully, so far as we know) because he is a young black man. I've seen no evidence that confirms that his race did not play a significant role.
Chief Wheeler's account leaves out any details that would confirm or deny this. We do not have a transcript of the convo between the dispatcher and the patrol officer, nor between the complainant and dispatcher. We do not know what the exact description given by the complainant was. All we have is Chief Wheeler's word and a generalized account at that.
I am not accusing him in this instance of lying. I am saying that he gives no specifics to support his claims. I suppose it could be argued that because he is the Chief, he's respected and liked, that we should take him at his word.
But here's the rub, I've dealt with the police in many different instances. For the most part, cordially and respectfully, even in demonstration / protest situations where the interaction was the most intense, when we were in conflict. I've been Police Liaison for numerous public demonstrations.
I have also run from the police and defied them in some instances during demonstrations. I have been struck, several times, by them in a few of those situations (not recently, not for decades) I have been maced, tear-gassed and waterhosed by them (also long ago).
I can say with absolute certainty, that some police, sometimes, for reasons of denial and attempting to maintain a positive public image when their actions have been egregious and illegal, lie. They've done it to my face, they've done it in public pronouncements.
So, whatever you think of the "appropriateness" or "proper placement of remarks and their articulation in the Waccoville File Cabinet" (Patrick, please... Waccotalk instead of Wacco Community? Really?) or the tight "logic" of someone's argument, I would say the facts in this matter are not completely clear.
Until we know what the exact description was for the possible perp, what the relative location of the vandalized car was (no we don't need to know the name of the complainant / purported witness) vs. Olembe's location when spotted by the patrol officer. We have different accounts of this. Sabrina's, "other end of town". Weaver's, "in the vicinity, spotted by the complainant". And what was the exact timing sequence of things? When was the first call, the first response, the second call ID'ing a possible perp, the officer seeing Olembe, the officer stopping Olembe. When and what was the followup with the complainant. What other actions were taken that evening with regard to this incident? What was the nature of the vandalism? When was it noticed? Was an information report taken on Olembe and where does that information end up? For how long? Who has access to it?
I haven't revisited Chief Weaver's account, I'm writing from days, weeks, old memory, this is a discussion, not a trial and no one is paying me to do this, nor have I attended law school or passed the bar!
And finally, a transcript of the dispatcher conversations with the complainant and the officer would need to be verified by an independent and trusted source. Proper redacting of personal information would be fine, as long as the locations and descriptions and timing sequence were sufficiently clear and reliable.
Cause I can say with certainty, sometimes (emphasis on sometimes), some cops (emphasis on some) make shit up to protect their own asses, or the asses of their colleagues. I am not saying this is the case here. I am saying it's just as possible as any other possibility.
And I'm also saying that no one here, save perhaps Chief Weaver if he's (you're) reading this, is in a position to know. OK, also the Patrol Officer, the Dispatcher, the SPD clerks and other police I suppose. Just as I'm saying that no one here (save the Chief) is able to definitively say that Olembe was not racially profiled, based on the available information / evidence we've seen on this thread.
Where the differences among us lie is a propensity to take the police at their word and doubt the word of those who have come into contact with them, to doubt those who are not happy about what happened (in this case Sabrina, indirectly, I spoke briefly with Olembe at a party on Saturday, he is not particularly engaged in this matter, so we're talking about the participants in this discussion, not him).
Patrick, you have no more solid proof that racial profiling did not occur, than Sabrina has that it definitively did. Granted, it is impossible to prove a negative. But without evidence, clear and definitive from the raw transcript of the active participants at the time, based on a verified contemporaneous record (not someone's summary of it, even the most unimpeachable source) that racial profiling did not occur, if someone has the opinion it did, based on their experience, it is kind of high handed and patronizing to assert they do not have the right to that opinion, should apologize for expressing it and are morally obligated to reverse themselves because they lack hard evidence.
By the way, we all know that "official records" can be tampered with. Also, that a cop who made a stop that turns out to be controversial is just as capable as anyone of giving an account that is the most self-justifying, while still full of accurate statements of fact. We all tend to put the best light on a situation where our own actions have been called into question. That's why without independent witnesses, recorded evidence, etc. even well documented claims are subject to question if the only documentation is the account of the primary party.
Famous incident in question to make this point. Was Rodney Hill beaten so brutally because he was Black? Or because he had run, was drunk, was resisting, not passive and "fighting back"? It's all there on the videotape in "Black & White", right? It should be easy to decide? Right? I would say it's probably both (Black and "uncooperative") but then the question arises, was he uncooperative because he is Black? And had a history of experiences with the cops that led him to run and then resist?
In fact, the response, "without clear proof you are not justified in calling it Racism", is an element of the very structural / institutional racism that subtly informs such occurrences and this discussion. Institutional racism is not an attitude, it's not documented verbal expression, it is not overt prejudice or behavior. It is the relative difference in power that different ethnic, racial groups have, inherited from the past, which make those with privilege oblivious to the subtle and clear reality of racial difference in our society. And those without privilege acutely aware that they lack it.
Concretely, that means a cop may be the most egalitarian, racially tolerant person in the world, but is still more likely to detain non-whites vs. whites, poor vs. well-off (although in that instance it's institutionalized classism, except when it's both) etc. because of the nature of our society. That means a lot of things, a big one being it is not a question of personal behavior or morality, as much as it is a question of the very fabric of our culture, our social structure.
When complaints/criticisms such as Sabrina's original one are met with dismissal, denial, criticism because she is seen as making a personal attack on the individual officer, rather than the system and our collective social arrangement, that shows that those who are responding in that manner have no clue as to the nature of institutionalized racism, have not learned what it means, how it works, etc.
Honestly, Patrick, Imagery, Edie and Dixon (I may have left out a few names, like I said I'm not writing a scholarly article or a legal brief here) how many of you have read the resources first referenced when this thread started?
How many of you are familiar with the work of Tim Wise and many others (Wise is in fact late to the party, I learned this stuff in the late seventies, long before he was part of the White Anti-Racist scene, but he provides a good overview and is working on/in the contemporary social environment).
How many Police Officers are given racial sensitivity training, not by other cops, but by experts in the field? It's pretty much de rigueur in the American workplace to give diversity trainings that address gender, ethnicity and race. Trainings that emphasize the law and consequences for violating it, as well as H.R. disciplinary procedures for lesser violations, when it come to discriminatory behavior and expression. Few of those trainings go down to the level of the history, politics and economics of discrimination (overt, covert and institutional). Actually none in my experience.
They tend to address the level of appearance and attitude, procedure and consequences. Which is part of the problem. Once you understand that Racism, Sexism, Classism and other forms of treating people as "The Other" are not only about what people think, say and do, but are in more profound and intractable ways woven in the very essence of our culture, you'll be in a position to understand the statistics that many of us have referenced here.
The most recent being a headline that I read yesterday that Black Americans (U.S.) have suffered far more in the last three years economically, than other racial/ethnic groups. I believe the phrase was, "Gains have been wiped out."
That's not because they have been targeted overtly by employers and business partners for "being black" (at least not for the most part) that's because of the structural aspects of coming from a group that was traumatized, marginalized, exploited, disenfranchised, stripped of culture/language/religion/dignity, brutalized and tortured, murdered, raped and beaten, for generations. Such trauma has generational consequences (of all kinds, emotional, economic, familial, educational, cultural, communal, etc.) that most people not from those people have no clue how deep and intractable are those wounds.
Similar things can be said about American Indians, American Latinos, some Asian groups, some European groups (such as Jewish people from Eastern and Central Europe) and of course there are significant differences within and between different populations. Privileged and underprivileged within each one.
I'll end with this point, that every person reading this needs to understand. If you are White you have no clue what it is like to be Black, Latino, Asian, Indian etc.. And vice versa, and inter versa. Do not think for a second because you've had an unpleasant encounter with a cop, that your experience is the same as others from different backgrounds and life experiences.
We can try to understand. We can talk about it, read about it, etc. But experience is not directly transferable. So don't act like you know, cause you don't. And when you do act like you know, no matter how well meaning you may be, it's offensive to those who live in different skins, and to those like myself, who have learned the difference between compassion and empathy, and experiential understanding.
Maybe this will help. Most enlightened Caucasian males have learned to avoid claiming that they understand, know, the experience of being a woman, even women of their own class and ethnicity. So why would you assume that you have a clue as to what it would be like to not be White?
And Patrick et al, I'm not saying you've said do understand what it's like. I'm saying you write as if you think you do and are therefore entitled to make judgments and pronouncements as if you do.
What's my proof? Your claims that Racism can't be easily proven unless it's overt and documented. Your argument is that to call out racial profiling requires clear evidence and the burden of evidence is on the accuser, not the alleged perpetrator.
It's just as reasonable to say that in a Racist society (which in general you have agreed is the case) that when a nineteen year old black man is stopped at midnight on a public main thoroughfare skipping, whistling, singing and playing a Kalimba on a Saturday night, because he "fits the description", the burden of proof to assert he was not detained (however briefly) because of his Race and age, is on those who detained him.
And that proof needs to be detailed and specific (within reason and ensuring the appropriate privacy of others). A general summary of events without such evidence, even from a trusted source (a source with a clear interest in denying that racial profiling occurred) is not proof of anything.
Miles, you seem to be challenging Patrick and Dixon to prove a negative, in your first and final paragraphs. You probably know that's actually impossible.
It's my belief that most of the racism that still exists has gone so far underground and unconscious that it is difficult to ferret out and impossible to prove, at least unequivocally.
I don't know how to fight this, except within my own self.
But open to ideas.
kathy
____Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by kpage9:
Miles, I don't know how you have the time to elaborate as much as you do. I also want to encourage folks to check the previously mentioned websites. I'm including others here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
Tim Wise: On White Privilege (video clip)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe...eature=related
https://www.timwise.org/
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack
https://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html
For a different perspective on news:
https://colorlines.com/archives/2011...mmer_jobs.html
https://colorlines.com
Googling "white privilege" gets over 4 million results.
It's important to keep the dialog going -- internally and in community.
___
I don't even know where to start to say "thank you" Miles for your absolutely Clear and Concise description and really clean breakdown analysis, about what's going down on this thread, historically, currently, and progressively speaking. You really get to the point and give an excellent tie in with current awareness of institutionalized racism and the years and generations of trauma that people of color in this country have been through and still very much needs healing plus the ignorance and unconsciousness of the whites with privilege, though well meaning many may be. I am made conscious of it all the time raising two kids of color and being white.
I will never forget the time when one of my children was teased for being brown in a school full of white children- the teacher's solution was to have the children touch my child's skin to see that it was the same. My husband and I did not allow this when it was suggested by the unconscious white teacher.
It makes me sick how many times I've been with my kids watching them interact with some white adult who has no idea the horrified look on their face, and when I step in to help, when I see the kid's getting a hard time, the clear look of "relief" on their face when the person see's the kids are with me. Coincidentally, this attitude I've witnessed by whites has become more exaggerated as my kids became more teen / young adult; and how about the looks I get now standing with my grown kids and my husband. The horrified looks are worse now that they are older than when they were little ones - this raises my fears of racial profiling, such as those who could just look at them and call the cops; then the cops who may do the wrong thing. I'm sorry, but even though I know there are a lot of really nice good cops out there, and I've met them, had to call on them, the truth is I'm more terrified by cops than not, probably because of the "power" they represent, i.e. man with a gun.
One of the most important things we can do to help to put an end to racism, which includes the racial profiling and the racial institutionalization we've been talking about here, is for white people, the original perpetrators in this country, to take more responsibility to become aware of it in themselves, like Kathy begins to suggest. Thank you Attila for directing everyone to so many great resources!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by zenekar:
Miles, you and I have been substantially simpatico over the years, and I know you're capable of proper reasoning. But lately I've seen you lapse unaccountably a couple of times into elementary fallacies. For instance, your statement above (at least as it applies to me, and maybe to Patrick too), is an example of the straw figure fallacy. You grossly mischaracterize my position, even though I've made it clear that that's not my position, then attack the phony position as if it were mine. Get it straight, Miles--I've never said nor implied that it's been proven that racism wasn't involved in this incident. Quite the contrary; I've explicitly stated repeatedly that we just don't know.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
You then waste a tremendous amount of time (including mine) by ranting at length about how racist our society is as if that's news. Again, I've explicitly said that myself at least once or twice in this thread, but that doesn't stop you from insulting me (among others) by pontificating self-righteously on the subject as if you think we're such troglodytes that we don't already know it. Have you forgotten past threads in which I've taken flak for addressing the genocide, slavery and racism that are fundamental to our society? I thought we were allies; now I find myself (again) subjected to an undeserved ration of shit from you.
In trying to make sense of your bizarre post, I can only assume that you've decided that, because racism is so fundamental a part of USAmerican culture, therefore we can assume that every time a cop questions a guy who happens to be black, racism is involved. Get a grip, Miles. You're intelligent enough and educated enough to know that that simplistic, absolutistic reasoning is just stupid. Life's not that simple.
With apologies for the redundancy to those who actually read my posts carefully the first time, and to dispel your considerable confusion, Miles, here's a summary of the positions I've already expressed clearly and consistently:
1. Yes, the USA (like all the colonial countries), is fundamentally racist, historically and up through the present.
2. Yes, the police as a social institution have performed the function of "keeping the niggers down".
3. It does not follow from this that all cops are racist, nor that a cop's simply stopping a guy who happens to be black and asking him some questions is evidence of racism.
4. In the absence of near-certain evidence, it's inappropriate to make public accusations of wrongdoing (as opposed to bringing up the possibility that it may have occurred). This is basic civility, based on the Golden Rule, and if you reject this idea, then you don't ever get to complain if you're falsely accused of something.
When you attack someone publicly on the basis of gross distortions of their clearly stated positions, you make an ass of yourself and risk turning allies into enemies. Go back and re-read my posts on this thread--#s 26, 38, 61, 68 and 101 (don't worry, they're not nearly as long as yours) so you can remind yourself of what my real positions are. Then you'll want to publicly acknowledge that you attacked me on the basis of gross distortions of my positions--and an apology would be nice. And it would also be nice if you would develop the habit of reading people's posts more carefully before you come screaming at them with self-righteous, more-progressive-than-thou, wrongheaded attacks.
Sheeeeshhhh!!!!
Dixon,
I haven't screamed anything.
The tenor of your posts in this thread, in regard to the issues raised here, is to deny, or to support others who deny, that there has been any proof there was racial motivation on the part of the officer who briefly detained Olembe.
If that was not part of what you have said here, then maybe you need to be more explicit. Because that's the impression I get. You said many other things that I agree with, I was not addressing them.
The point of my last post was to say to anyone taking the position, "Oh great, racial profiling in this instance is off the table because Chief Weaver says so.", was that without access to the original record, including salient details, no one here is in a position to claim whether or not racial profiling occurred. Patrick clearly took that position (the position I just put in quotes). Your "gratitude" support and other comments implied that you agreed with him. Hence my including your name.
This is the second, perhaps the third time you've gone to personal insult and extreme huffiness with me here on waccobb. I don't really care. And I leave it to anyone who does to reread the record and decide who the champion of hyperbole is here, you or me. (If these first four paragraphs are insufficient grist for your outrage mill, keep reading, my last thirteen paragraphs are also directed primarily at you.)
Zenekar/Attila, I have the time because I'm unemployed and care deeply about this and related issues of social justice. And have been engaged in these struggles for over three decades. And I probably wasted two or three hours yesterday afternoon composing a post that I've been thinking about for a few days.
Kpage9, in rereading my first and last paragraph in my previous post I don't see where I'm asking or demanding that Patrick or Dixon prove anything, let alone a negative. I am saying that they can't prove a negative, that negative being that racial profiling did not occur in this instance, based on the available information. That's not saying they should prove anything. It is saying that what they appear to think has been proved, has not.
These issues are best discussed in person. The lack of affect and immediacy lead to the kind of misunderstandings and resentments that we see here, especially from those who do not take being criticized and contradicted, even clearly, politely and respectfully, well.
Dixon, perhaps you think everything written in my previous post was directed at you personally. It was not. Try rereading it and only include the extant paragraphs that start with an address to you and Patrick (I think, in most instances, but I'm not going to reread something I reread at least five or six times before posting it twelve hours ago. By my clock it is now 5:00 a.m. I need to move on) and any subsequent paragraphs that follow with the same theme, and leave out the ones where I change to a different specific topic. You might find that it makes more sense in the context of your remarks in this thread.
(What follows is mostly directed at you, Dixon. The indicator of that, other than this parenthetical note, is that I use "you" rather than "one" or some other non-second person pronoun. Also the thematic content is specific in its consistency.)
I've done textual exegesis, I find it works best in a study group. I first did it in bible studies in high school. Later in Marxist reading groups. Doing it in an internet text messaging thread, seems to be a recipe for frustration, misinterpretation and perceived insult. (Plus it's highly inefficient and time consuming. Not something I'm interested in. Not here on waccobb. Not anywhere on the internet.)
None of which I intend here (frustration, misinterpretation and perceived insult, those are) at least not in any conscious way that I am aware of. May I suggest that, based on my experience with our several contretemps, that you suffer from a very thin skin? At least in this context? (That context being waccobb.net) May I suggest that you ask for understanding before leaping to the worst possible and most insulting to yourself conclusion in our exchanges here?
If you recall the brief participation of my friend Fred Dolan several years ago, before he left due to the limits and often inane aspects of the discussions here on waccobb, he, when things first started going south, mentioned the concept of, "The Charity Principle" in any discussion/debate/argument. That one might start by giving ones interlocutors the benefit of the doubt, that the most charitable interpretation of their remarks are the best starting point. (I consciously used "might" instead of "should" in this paragraph in an effort to avoid a patronizing, preaching, demanding, moralistic tone. How'd I do?)
Only when absolutely clear evidence of malice, insult, ignorance, etc. is provided is it then appropriate to respond as if those were the issues.
If I've directly accused you of anything in this thread, it's that you have shown (at least to me) that your concept of racism seems to mostly involve overt expressions of prejudice, as your preferred criteria for provable bias. Racial profiling is more an issue of institutionalized racism, where clear evidence based on the behavior of the authorities (or anyone) is seldom, if ever, available.
Your comments here have not clearly indicated (at least to me) that you are aware of the difference between overt prejudice and the nuances of systemic, institutionalized racism.
Instead of taking umbrage, another strategy would be to demonstrate how I am mistaken. Showing how you have expressed that difference and indicated your understanding. (Listing Post #'s in a voluminous thread doesn't cut it. If you want me to read specific text you've already written, either quote it, or repeat it. You might have noticed my repetition of themes and ideas here. That's because I try, as best as I can in these basically edited one-offs to not demand that my readers do any more work than they have to. Again, none of us is getting paid to be here, so far as I know.)
Or you could read up and indicate how you understand the subtle differences between expressed prejudice and assumed lack of bias within a system derived from, based upon and operating according to systemic bias and privilege. Protestations to the contrary, the tenor of your position here does not demonstrate that to me.
In fact, you, "fit the description", of those I've met many times over, those who protest that they're not biased at all and are outraged at the implication, all the while demanding proof that bias has taken place, or not, before they will countenance the complaints of those who perceive it. If you were hip to the extant theory of institutionalized racism, you would know that your response is the classic defense mechanism. There are other options besides outrage, denial and insult.
As for absolutist statements on my part, as a matter of practice I make overt efforts to avoid them. Are you confusing generalization with absolutism? If you were to reread me with that in mind, you might find another interpretation available to you. Assertion is not a claim to absolute truth. It is merely a way to express confidence and conviction. I assume all claims are subject to revision, criticism, correction, as sufficient evidence becomes available.
As for your demands and insults, I'll refrain from playing that game. Just as Patrick "hectoring" Sabrina for an apology to the SPD, how effective, both rhetorically and practically, do you think it is to demand apologies from those who have offended you? In my experience, not so much.
Is this your standard for making public accusations? I have seen no evidence that you are not a shoplifter; I have owned retail business, and I have suffered the evil effects of shoplifting many times, and I know that many unemployed people shoplift, so if you visited my business and I later found something missing, you would presumably have no objection if I posted a thread accusing you of shoplifting, right? I know, not a strictly parallel case, but you get the idea. In our culture it is generally considered proper to have at least some evidence to back up an accusation before making it. Here there is none, except for a broad generalization applied to a particular case.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Well, that and the account of the young man who was stopped, which corroborates the parts he had knowledge of, and the complete lack of evidence of any kind supporting the accusation.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Since the accuser gives no specifics to support her accusation in the first place, the matter is somewhat moot. I have commented before that it is ironic that by claiming in this way her son was profiled, she is in fact profiling the officer.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
I have already commented at some length about this kind of argument. You are demanding absolute proof of the falsity of an accusation for which there is no evidence of its truth. Show us the proof that you are not a shoplifter. And I did not say she had no right to hold the opinion, or to express that opinion, just that she had no right to state it as a fact.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Which is why it is fortunate that in this case we do have corroborating evidence, that of a particularly credible witness, that of the young man himself, who confirms the chief's account.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Seriously? To me it is a basic element of fairness to require at least some kind of evidence before making such an accusation. Nobody as far as I can see is demanding clear proof, so this is a straw man argument. In this case there is no evidence at all.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
She did make a personal attack on the officer in the title of her post (at least by very strong implication if not absolutely explicitly). If she had said something like "My son was stopped on Main Street, and my experience with racism in our society made me conclude that he may have been profiled" then I would have no problem with the thread.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
I am getting a little weary of being misquoted. I said no such thing. My sole objection here is the unsubstatiated allegation contained in the title. I stand by my contention that if you are going to accuse someone of a specific dereliction, you need to have actual evidence that the dereliction has actually been committed in this particular case. Otherwise state it as a general tendency. Is this so hard to understand?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Again, substitute my unemployed people shoplifting example to see the absurdity of this statement.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
For someone who demands actual quotes in support of responses to what you say, you are remarkably reckless with your own quoting. The use of quotation marks implies that you are quoting my actual words. Not only did I not say any such thing, I do not believe I even said anything that could construed to mean this.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
How does this square with your
?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
I am not aware of having hectored Sabrina. I expressed my opinion that the ethical course under the circumstances would be to apologize, and I disagreed with her continued assertion that she had no cause to do so. This is hectoring?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Quick, someone find Miles a job. Unemployment is clearly affecting his thinking processes.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Patrick Brinton
Patrick,
I never called for or demanded "absolute" proof of anything.
Here's what we know for certain. Olembe, a young black man was rousted by a Sebastopol patrolman around midnight a few Saturday's ago. He had not done anything wrong, was relatively unharmed, when his mother learned about it, it angered and otherwise upset her, she wrote a post asserting that he had been racially profiled.
An assertion is an opinion, whether it is explicitly written as one, or not.
When I use quotes, I may be quoting someone, but usually indicate that by a direct reference to the speaker/writer or by the context in which I use them. Quotation marks can also indicate irony.
The ways in which Olembe's account jibe with Chief Weaver's do not go to resolving the issue of racial profiling.
We do not know the exact nature of the complaint. We do not know the exact description of the suspect that was given by the witness. We do not know the exact proximity, temporal and spacial that Olembe was in when noticed by the police officer and rousted.
There are lots of potentially telling details that we do not know. So concluding that it has not been proven that racial profiling was involved, without sufficient information one way or another, is presumptuous. Not logical.
And if you were to have me rousted for entering your shop, leaving, having never been observed taking anything or otherwise acting in a suspicious manner, based solely on your knowledge that I am unemployed (gainfully, I won't be a '99'er until the end of next month, as far as I can tell) you would be economically profiling me. And if the report you gave to the police was, "I didn't see him do anything but item X is missing and I know he's unemployed.", and the police acted on that information by rousting me, they would be profiling me economically. I would hope they have enough training not to do so. I'm not volunteering for an experiment to find out.
The main idea that I want to emphasize in my responses here is that institutionalized racism, and other forms of discrimination, cannot be understood in terms of intent, overt, or even covert, bias and hatred. An official can be completely unbiased, even biased in favor of the underdog, but still function to enforce institutionalized bias.
And it's not solely a function of attitude, behavior, conscious or un, it's about structural limits and ways in which inequality are maintained by the very nature of the social system, the ways in which it works.
Many approaches to anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-sexism, anti-disabled, etc. focus on attitude, intent, overt behavior, inherited assumptions, etc. And that's a start. The theory of institutionalized discrimination goes deeper, to the ways in which we all are embedded in a system of enforced difference, which are deeper and independent of our volition, consciousness, attitudes.
This is hard for the basic rationalist to grasp. It's resisted because it's seen as nonsensical. Hence many of the replies here, such as yours. Read the literature, you might learn something. If, after reading it, you still want to dismiss it and its proponents such as myself as irrational, well, that's your prerogative. But doing so before having explored it, makes you the fool.
Miles, I acknowledge that my use of the word "screaming" was an exaggeration. You did not scream; I was responding emotionally due to my extreme frustration at being subjected, once again, to an attack by you based on your gross distortion of my clearly stated positions. I apologize if my use of that word caused you any distress.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Right you are, Miles. I deny that there has been one iota of proof expressed anywhere on this thread that "...there was racial motivation on the part of the officer who briefly detained Olembe." And here's some good news: this specific claim is readily resolved thusly: you either show one or more quotes that constitute evidence of such racial motivation, or you acknowledge that I'm right about the lack of such evidence. Fair enough? (And, just to be clear, let's agree that if someone calls the police and says that someone committed a crime and describes that person as being of a certain race, whether black, white, brown, etc., detaining someone of that description is not what we're calling "racial motivation"; we're talking about racism instead, okay?)Quote:
The tenor of your posts in this thread, in regard to the issues raised here, is to deny, or to support others who deny, that there has been any proof there was racial motivation on the part of the officer who briefly detained Olembe.
Miles, of the 3 posts by Patrick on this thread that I've "Gratituded", the only one in which he even mentions Chief Weaver's statement was #89, and all he says about it is "Actually in this case one is not more likely than the other. We do have the account of the person who was most intimately involved here, the young man who was stopped, who says that the chief's account is accurate." Your characterization of that as "Oh great, racial profiling in this instance is off the table because Chief Weaver says so" is, at best, an exaggeration--ironically coming from a guy who has a habit of invoking "the Charity Principle". Even if we were to assume that Patrick meant what you say he meant, "Gratituding" of a post does not imply endorsement of everything said in it--or are you unclear on that fact?Quote:
The point of my last post was to say to anyone taking the position, "Oh great, racial profiling in this instance is off the table because Chief Weaver says so.", was that without access to the original record, including salient details, no one here is in a position to claim whether or not racial profiling occurred. Patrick clearly took that position (the position I just put in quotes). Your "gratitude" support and other comments implied that you agreed with him. Hence my including your name.
So on the one hand, Miles, we have your overreaching assumption that my Gratituding of Patrick's post #89 constitutes endorsement of your unflattering, exaggerated interpretation of Patrick's comment about Chief Weaver's statement, which somehow (along with other misinterpretations) led you to assert that I hold the unfounded position that "...it has somehow been proven that in no part of the incident in question Olembe was detained ... because he is a young black man." (your words). On the other hand, we have these clear statements from me: "Does that mean that Olembe was subjected to racial profiling in the incident under discussion? Quite possibly, but we don't know." (post #26); and "Arguing with one another on the basis of an assumption that we know that racial profiling actually did or didn't take place in this situation is pointless. We'll probably never know." (also post #26); and "...people should refrain from talking as if we know for sure that the cop did (or didn't) do something wrong." (post #61); and "... it's an accusation which, while possibly being true, is just as likely to be false, and is simply unsupported by the facts that have been mentioned." (post #101); and "I've never said nor implied that it's been proven that racism wasn't involved in this incident. Quite the contrary; I've explicitly stated repeatedly that we just don't know." (post #106).
So now I've done your homework for you, Miles; I've gone back and excerpted five crystal-clear expressions of my real position and presented them to you on a silver platter, which I shouldn't have had to do because you should have gotten clear on my clearly and repeatedly expressed position before publicly accusing me of taking the unreasonable position that "it has somehow been proven that in no part of the incident in question Olembe was detained...because he is a young black man." Now can you acknowledge that your characterization of my position was distorted into an unreasonable position that I never took? Is this how you practice your much-touted Charity Principle, Miles?
I have apologized for my description of you as "screaming". Please note that that one word is the only one I'm apologizing for; every other criticism in that post is accurate and fair, and I urge you to try to consider them open-mindedly rather than brushing them aside as "insults".Quote:
This is the second, perhaps the third time you've gone to personal insult and extreme huffiness with me here on waccobb.
Also, I urge you to acknowledge that I was responding to having been insulted by you. Can you concede that your attribution to me of a really stupid unfounded position that I clearly never took was insulting? You dish it out way better than you take it, Mr. Charity Principle.
And you don't like my "huffiness"? I can dig it; I don't like getting "huffy"; it's no fun. Here's a solution: you treat me reasonably and respectfully (i.e., refrain from insulting me with gross distortions of my positions), and there'll be no need for "huffiness".
That's manifestly untrue.Quote:
I don't really care.
Yes, I encourage everyone to do that.Quote:
And I leave it to anyone who does to reread the record and decide who the champion of hyperbole is here, you or me.
Miles, if by chance you've gotten this far without explicitly acknowledging that that's not my position, now is the time to correct your mistake by doing so.Quote:
...I don't see where I'm asking or demanding that Patrick or Dixon prove anything, let alone a negative. I am saying that they can't prove a negative, that negative being that racial profiling did not occur in this instance, based on the available information. That's not saying they should prove anything. It is saying that what they appear to think has been proved, has not.
Quote:
These issues are best discussed in person.
Agreed. Perhaps we can do that?
Such as yourself.Quote:
The lack of affect and immediacy lead to the kind of misunderstandings and resentments that we see here, especially from those who do not take being criticized and contradicted, even clearly, politely and respectfully, well.
Nope, I don't.Quote:
Dixon, perhaps you think everything written in my previous post was directed at you personally.
I'll certainly take that hypothesis under consideration. Thanks for the feedback. Now here's some for you: May I suggest that your desire to see me as thin-skinned represents an evasion of the fact that I've been responding with reasonable outrage to your insulting me by attributing to me really stupid positions that I manifestly have not taken? And, if you've somehow gotten this far in this post without explicitly acknowledging that you've done that, are you ready to acknowledge it yet?Quote:
May I suggest that, based on my experience with our several contretemps, that you suffer from a very thin skin?
This is an astounding thing for you to say, coming as it does from a guy who's lately shown a remarkable propensity for attributing to others stupid positions that they explicitly have not taken! Having said that, if you think I've leaped to some unfounded conclusion, show me the quote(s) and we'll deal with it.Quote:
May I suggest that you ask for understanding before leaping to the worst possible and most insulting to yourself conclusion in our exchanges here?
Oh yes, I've already pointed out a couple of instances in which you've failed to practice what you preach regarding the Charity Principle. It would be helpful if you would look back at those instances and acknowledge them. If you think I've violated the Charity Principle in this discussion, provide the quote(s) and we'll deal with it.Quote:
...the concept of, "The Charity Principle" in any discussion/debate/argument. That one might start by giving ones interlocutors the benefit of the doubt, that the most charitable interpretation of their remarks are the best starting point.
More importantly, the Charity Principle is the crux of our disagreement! Patrick, I, and others are suggesting--insisting, really--that accusing someone of something vile in the absence of evidence is a gross violation of the Charity Principle, and that this principle applies to accusations leveled at cops as well as to any other human beings. You are suggesting that our taking that position in this case is somehow evidence of our non-enlightenment about racism. So it's hilarious that you're preaching to me about the Charity Principle when the whole dispute is about some of us trying to apply it to this case, and you among others not wanting to!
Very, very poorly. Your patronizing, preaching attitude radiates from you like looniness radiates from Michele Bachmann.Quote:
(I consciously used "might" instead of "should" in this paragraph in an effort to avoid a patronizing, preaching, demanding, moralistic tone. How'd I do?)
Bingo! That's the principle that I'm invoking. Just add the word "racism" to the evils listed in your statement and we have my position in a nutshell. You readily invoke reasonable standards like this in your own defense, but are unwilling to apply the selfsame principles of fairness to others, such as the cop in this case. That double standard in your thinking constitutes egocentric reasoning, which is both a moral failure and a logical one. You also said in a previous post that "...no one here is in a position to claim whether or not racial profiling occurred", but don't seem to grasp that it's therefore inappropriate to accuse someone of it.Quote:
Only when absolutely clear evidence of malice, insult, ignorance, etc. is provided is it then appropriate to respond as if those were the issues.
You have directly accused me of taking the position that "...it has somehow been proven that in no part of the incident in question Olembe was detained...because he is a young black man", in direct contradiction of my clearly and repeatedly stated position that we just don't know. Are you ready to acknowledge that yet, or would you prefer to evade dealing with it honestly for awhile longer?Quote:
If I've directly accused you of anything in this thread...
Again you distort what I've said! I mentioned overt expressions of prejudice as an example of the kind of proof one would need to appropriately charge someone with profiling. Please acknowledge that, contrary to your distortion of it, that doesn't mean that my "...concept of racism seems to mostly involve overt expressions of prejudice, as your preferred criteria for provable bias."Quote:
...it's that you have shown (at least to me) that your concept of racism seems to mostly involve overt expressions of prejudice, as your preferred criteria for provable bias.
Miles, what I'm addressing here is this specific issue: Did racial profiling occur by a particular officer(s) in a particular case; in other words, was Olembe treated any differently than a white kid would have been treated in the same circumstance? What you seem unable or unwilling to grasp is that, while "the nuances of systemic, institutionalized racism" is a related topic, and makes it very plausible that profiling could have occurred here, it tells us nothing about whether it actually did occur. And the related issue is that we shouldn't accuse people of vile things like racist acts in the absence of evidence that they occurred.Quote:
Racial profiling is more an issue of institutionalized racism, where clear evidence based on the behavior of the authorities (or anyone) is seldom, if ever, available.
Your comments here have not clearly indicated (at least to me) that you are aware of the difference between overt prejudice and the nuances of systemic, institutionalized racism.
Miles, your condescending, self-righteous, more-progressive-than-thou attitude is not a constructive contribution to the dialogue. I'm not here to beg for your stamp of approval. I've explicitly stated in this thread and elsewhere that racism is fundamental to the USAmerican psyche; if that's not the exact wording you want, that's your problem. What I want from you now is explicit acknowledgment that the fact of institutionalized racism in our society constitutes no proof whatsoever that racial profiling took place in this particular case. Can you acknowledge that or not?Quote:
Instead of taking umbrage, another strategy would be to demonstrate how I am mistaken. Showing how you have expressed that difference and indicated your understanding.
Quote:
Or you could read up and indicate how you understand the subtle differences between expressed prejudice and assumed lack of bias within a system derived from, based upon and operating according to systemic bias and privilege.
Miles, do you understand that I'm not assuming lack of racial bias in this case, and that nothing I've said implies that I am? (That's not a rhetorical question; it requires an answer.)
I see. So if I suggest that it's wrong to publicly accuse someone of something vile like racial profiling without evidence, that's a defense mechanism on my part, eh? What exactly am I defending--that is, besides basic concepts of fairness? And it's my ignorance, my not being "...hip to the extant theory of institutionalized racism..." that causes me to insist on evidence before accusation? This is downright Orwellian, Miles. You should be ashamed.Quote:
In fact, you, "fit the description", of those I've met many times over, those who protest that they're not biased at all and are outraged at the implication, all the while demanding proof that bias has taken place, or not, before they will countenance the complaints of those who perceive it. If you were hip to the extant theory of institutionalized racism, you would know that your response is the classic defense mechanism.
So I guess my outrage at being repeatedly insulted and condescended to by you is inappropriate, eh?Quote:
There are other options besides outrage...
Denial of what, exactly?Quote:
...denial...
The only thing I said that could reasonably be construed as an insult was my characterization of you as "screaming", which I've already apologized for (above). Everything else is constructive criticism rather than insult because, no matter how unpleasant it may sound, it's true. Your desire to dismiss it all as "insults" is, to use your term, a "defense mechanism". And so far you've failed to acknowledge that your gross distortion of my clearly stated position was an insult. And, more importantly, you've failed to acknowledge that accusing the cop of racial profiling in the absence of evidence is an insult. Are you ready to acknowledge that yet, or would you like to run off on evasive tangents for awhile longer?Quote:
...and insult.
What I called your absolutism was your apparent assumption that (as I stated it): "...because racism is so fundamental a part of USAmerican culture, therefore we can assume that every time a cop questions a guy who happens to be black, racism is involved." That is an absolutistic position, and I'm glad you brought it up, because I want to ask you if that's indeed your position or if you can concede that it's possible for a white cop to detain and question a black guy without racism being involved.Quote:
As for absolutist statements on my part, as a matter of practice I make overt efforts to avoid them. Are you confusing generalization with absolutism?
Hmmm...so you justify publicly accusing someone of racism without evidence, but then require evidence to change your unfounded claim. Guilty until proven innocent.Quote:
I assume all claims are subject to revision, criticism, correction, as sufficient evidence becomes available.
Oh please, Miles, your odor of sanctity here is really the stench of hypocrisy. As I've pointed out (I'm afraid quite redundantly to counter your attempted obtuseness), you've been plenty insulting without copping to it. As for demands, I make no apology for demanding evidence before people make public accusations, nor for demanding that you acknowledge the insulting inaccuracy of your distortion of my position.Quote:
As for your demands and insults, I'll refrain from playing that game.
Another distortion from you. I didn't "demand" an apology; I said "...an apology would be nice." In fact, I never demand apologies, because an insincere apology is worse than none at all. It would be nice if you'd acknowledge that you distorted my clearly stated position in an insulting way, and apologize from a sincere feeling of remorse, but I would never demand an apology.Quote:
Just as Patrick "hectoring" Sabrina for an apology to the SPD, how effective, both rhetorically and practically, do you think it is to demand apologies from those who have offended you? In my experience, not so much.
In closing, let me try to cut to the chase and get us closer to some reasonable resolution. I tried to get to the crux in my previous post by listing my four main points, but, true to form, you ignored them in favor of your misinterpretations, evasions and marginally related tangents. I'm going to reproduce them here and ask you to show that you're arguing in good faith, rather than just trolling, by responding as concisely and directly as possible, without distorting my clear meanings or evading the issues through lengthy tangential lecturing. Please acknowledge that you understand that I agree with you on points 1 and 2, and let me know if you agree with points 3 and 4 (and if you don't please make your case concisely). Here are my main points again:
1. Yes, the USA (like all the colonial countries), is fundamentally racist, historically and up through the present.
2. Yes, the police as a social institution have performed the function of "keeping the niggers down".
3. It does not follow from this that all cops are racist, nor that a cop's simply stopping a guy who happens to be black and asking him some questions is evidence of racism.
4. In the absence of near-certain evidence, it's inappropriate to make public accusations of wrongdoing (as opposed to bringing up the possibility that it may have occurred). This is basic civility, based on the Golden Rule, and if you reject this idea, then you don't ever get to complain if you're falsely accused of something.
I thank you in advance for your direct, reasonable answers.
Dixon,
As I stated in my previous response to you, I am not going to engage in a tit for tat textual exegesis with you, goad away, don't get your hopes up.
As for your final four questions. Yes to 1-3. No to 4. On question 3 there are some provisos. See my previous reply to Patrick.
So far you've given no indication that you've explored the references provided here by me and others to various works on the phenomenon of institutionalized racism. And your detailed harangue, oops, "reply" indicates to me you do not understand the theory behind it. It's up to you to educate yourself on this matter. Nobody can do it for you.
A key indicator that you are ignorant of the information and ideas gathered by the White Anti-Racist movement is your use of the N-Word (even in quotes to give yourself cover, even if only for illustrative "educational purposes") in a previous post in this thread, and repeated in your last post, in question #2 (I think). Have you watched the short video of Tim Wise on this matter?
I really recommend you do. I ran into trouble while subbing in an H-Unit ABE III classroom a couple of years ago by even using the reference I used in the previous paragraph, not the word itself, while trying to illustrate a point about essay writing.
I thought I was being careful, I learned I was not and it led to some very outraged men, and their teacher when she returned. Long story, I think I told it here somewhere. My point being that no matter how enlightened we think we are on these matters, it's easy to overstep.
Most responses I could give to your last reply are contained in my previous post on this thread. My last reply to Patrick. Enjoy.
OK, I've had my fill of the personal attacks and counter attacks, and I bet most readers have too. I think we've beat the core question of racial profiling to a bloody pulp long ago...
If you folks want to continue your well-written :duel:, or if you want to address the more general concern of racial profiling and its related issues, please do it in WaccoTalk. If anybody has anything new to add, you are welcome to reply here, but only if it's new and directly connected to this incident or other local experiences.
Thanks!
:waccosun:
May I suggest a topic that has been mentioned, but not responded to, and has been puzzling me. Under the stated circumstances, how should the officer have acted so as to both do his job and avoid the suspicion of profiling?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Patrick Brinton
I've been out of town for a few days, but I came home to some stories of bad apple cops that are why I am left feeling basically terrorized any time I see a cop anywhere near my black and brown family. While there are nice / good cops out there that I have experienced, it is the Bad things that cops do that gives them an image of terrorists. If Sebastopol police are any different perhaps they should where different uniforms, be trained differently, i.e. start training them NOT to shoot to kill.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:
Just this last Sat., July 16, a young 19 yr. old black man was brutally killed, shot in the back 5 times by SFPD police for running away from them when he failed to pay all his Muni toll. (Video Links Here) Already the police are trying to say he was shooting a gun first and that he was wanted as a suspect for a shooting in Seattle . But if you read the articles and videos I'm about to post here, you'll see that witnesses say he did not shoot a gun, and that his Attorney in Seattle describes him as a kid trying to get his life back in order and wanted to attend community college. The images of the so called "gun" on the ground in the videos look to me like they could be a cell phone. Also, the item the kid in the striped jacket picked up that cops say was a gun, looks like something square, actually looks like a wad of cash if you ask me. Read all comments below vids too.
Although the above story could make it's own new thread, I decided to post it here, because these kinds of cop killings are what keep me terrorized when I see the blackish uniform, especially when my young kid could be out and about. If Sebastopol police want to create a new image for cops, more power to them, lets see it happen. Change the uniforms, shoot to "halt" not to kill trainings!
Actually the cop may not have been able to respond any differently to my son than he'd done, Patrick, but until we have more solid evidence, I think he was profiled...either by the cop or by the vandalism victim.
Also, another story that came into my email today was about another racial profiling instance. Should sagging pants get you kicked off a flight? Arrested? Jailed? It did for 20 year old black young man, DeShon Marman. The below link is a story and a petition.
Tell US Airways: discrimination and stereotyping don't fly
My views on the second part by now have been well aired, and there is nothing to be gained by reiterating them here, so I will leave that part alone. However I am a little disappointed with the first part, which seems to me something of a cop-out. You have alerted us to the issue of profiling quite adequately, and rather than continue to pile on more and more instances of what everyone here already agrees is a huge problem in our society I for one would rather see you address what you would prefer to see in the area of police behavior, specifically in the kind of situation that started this whole thing. Not what can the police do to change their culture, or our perception of them; that belongs over in WaccoTalk*. What I still want to know is how the officer could have acted differently so as to avoid the suspicion of profiling, while still doing his job. Because if the answer really is that he could not have responded any differently, then that puts all cops in a no-win situation, doesn't it? Are we not in danger of leaning too far the other way, and creating a situation where cops will hesitate to stop someone they would otherwise have stopped because they happen to be black? We do want to stop crime and catch criminals even if they are black, right?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sabrina:
*Note to Miles in response to a previous remark
that I let slide at the time: yes, Miles, there is a difference between posting something in the General Community section and posting it in WaccoTalk. If there were not, there would not be two categories, now would there? In case you are unclear on the difference, perhaps Barry will be kind enough to explain it to you.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Patrick Brinton
I'm reviving this thread to let folks know about a city hall general meeting coming up this Tues. April 3, 2012 in which we will be sharing this issue, including the dispatch transcript. Please go to this link on Waccobb.net under events posted by Peggy Day that has more info, plus the link to the actual dispatcher tape [link removed by request of the "Reporting Party" - Barry] that was retrieved from Sebastopol police.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?88709
The similarity to the dispatch tape for the recent killing of Trayvon Martin in FLA is chillingly similar. Please read the events forum listing pasted above, as very well written by Peggy Day.
Thanks. ~ Sabrina -
P.S. My concern here is Dispatch protocol and realize the thread name is still about racially profiling - but not necessarily the fault of the police officer who pulled my son over - more on the part of the dispatcher who just immediately gave power to the caller - regardless of the fact that the caller had randomly been driving around town looking for someone who "looked" suspicious. Read and listen to links above before asking questions, PLEASE.
There’s new evidence in the “My son was racially profiled” thread, and what better time to address it?
The transcript of the (police, dispatcher, reporting person) communications is online and sheds more light on the incident.
The RP (reporting person) told the DISPATCHER “I heard a noise”, went outside and found his vehicle mirror broken, and “jumped in the car to drive around and see who was walking around the neighborhood and I just encountered this guy walking around the neighborhood.” It seems the RP noticed a young, black male near the bagel shop and jumped to a conclusion even though the young, black male was a good way from the RP’s home and offered no evidence of suspicious behavior.
The Dispatcher was told by the RP that he hadn’t seen anyone near his house. The RP did not tell the Dispatcher that he had any evidence to believe that the young , black male was the culprit. The RP just wanted the YBM checked out. Out of all the people on the Main Street of the city, in any direction, he chose the young, black male.
The Dispatcher contacted a patrol officer and reported that, “the RP heard a loud noise, went out to see and observed a black male wearing dark clothing.”
This is a very different statement from the statement given to the dispatcher by the RP. The RP said he went outside, didn’t see anybody, jumped in his vehicle and drove around. Down on Main Street (which is probably the busiest street in Sebastopol, with the most foot traffic) he saw a young , black male and called the police again.
The Dispatcher is at fault here. She misreported the situation and caused an incident of illegal harassment. The policeman was given the incorrect information (that the YBM was seen at the scene of the crime) when he was actually seen for the first time at least several blocks away on the busiest street in Sebastopol. There was no reason to stop the YBM. This was harassment caused by the faulty reporting of the dispatcher.
Thank you Joe, Well said, very well said.
Hi Joe,
I agree with you completely. One distinction. The caller's mirror was broken at 9 pm. He made a call to dispatch then, but I didn't get a copy of it . Wish I had. The "noise" was about 11 pm -- 2 hours later. The noise that made him go drive around for a look.
Good point that there were probably others in town, the BM was at a concert and slowly making his way home, playing the kalimba along the way.
I hope you'll come to the City Council meeting on Tuesday evening at 6 pm. Even if you don't want to use your eloquent words to speak to council at public comment, your presence will be noted by the council members.
Thank you, Joe,
Peggy
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by joehogan:
Does this transcript/recording or any other credible source indicate if there were any other "likely suspect" *pedestrians* in the area at c. 11PM? Is it possible that the young man who was stopped was the only person walking around at that time? If you saw a young male, regardless of race/ethnicitity, out late at night and dancing/prancing around while playing some flute thing, what would you think?
Maybe we could do a test by having people of different ages and races dress in hoodies and go skipping/prancing down Sebastopol Ave. at midnight and see who gets stopped for questioning. Males between age 12 and 25 would likely be at the top of the list. That's the demographic responsible for most of the crimes like the one reported by the resident in this scenario.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by joehogan:
There were no hoodies in the Sebastopol recording. And, the vandalism took place about 9 pm. The man went looking at 11 pm. I've had a lot of car mirrors destroyed and never thought to go on the 'prowl.'
If I saw a young man playing an instrument just after a concert got out in downtown, I'd think he had a good time and go about my way. No matter what his demographic.
Peggy
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Glia: