Minnesotan Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Don't consider it so much that the government has taken these jobs, grants and scholarships away from you, rather, the government has intentionally created them for someone else, after deciding it would be in the intrest of the common good to do so. Since you were never awarded the job/grant/scholarship originally, it wasn't "taken" from you. You may feel that you're entitled to such a "freebie" but your right to a specific one never vested. If you feel that a career in scholarship, a predominantly government subsidized market, does not offer you the kind of opportunities for economic advancement that you would like in the form of sufficient "freebies" set aside for you and only you, perhaps you can take advantage of the good education you've already received, make an honest assessment of your own personal skills and get what even academics sometimes refer to as "a real job." Nice attitude! When it's white folks who want certain jobs, they should give in to discriminatory practices, like the good little sheep they are. If I was a black woman, there would be public outrage about the easy dismissal I receive as a potential candidate; they tell me to my face that I am white and male, therefore I am not qualiied! This is exactly the kind of behavior any good liberal (like me, not a Rush Limbaugh fan, as you imply) would fight against -- you think it's okay because discrimination is only legal against white males and homosexual couples (in some states). It's amazing how narratives of the "other" are only powerful when we mean "other than white men." These jobs were not created (the ones I and my partner have applied for, anyway). They were preexisting positions reclassified for minority-only employees. They are TAships, RAships, editorships, or administrative/bureaucratic assistantships -- something that most grad students need to survive. You say I have marketable skills, but how am I marketable when I'm already at a disadvantage because of my race and gender. I think the backpack is on the other shoulder, these days. As for bringing race into the situation at issue, it was certainly not white people who thought that one up. Give "credit" where credit is due for relating everything back to race and perceptions of victimhood. I seriously doubt Gates and his team of ravening lawyers were unaware of Gates's rights; it's more likely the broken race record was already playing, so he went with the easy, sensationalist argument. Once again, you're assuming he's a victim when he made the choice to play the race card because he plays the race card for a living. He's used to blaming white folk for his problems, because that absolves him of personal responsibility for his failures and makes his successes look that much more dramatic.
Yellow#5 Posted July 31, 2009 Author Posted July 31, 2009 And yet, Gates was arrested, but not charged. Racial profiling in the legal context is an argument related to the 4th Amendment, specifically, what are called "stop and frisk" situations. Officers have a margin of discretion based on a "probable cause" standard to stop citizens on the street if their "training and experience leads them to reasonably think that person is committing a crime." Over time, this discretion has been expanded to allow "frisks" or "pat downs" that are justified by an officers need to be safe when questioning a possible criminal. There is endless case law defining the scope of a "pat down" whether it has to be over the clothes, can it be under a jacket, etc. without violating the 4th Amendment. When people are stopped under the reasonable suspicion standard in their cars, the "frisK" rationale of officer safety has been expanded to allow cursory searches of the car. The "plain view" standard is generally allowed, and then there are often factual disputes about whether something found was really in plain view, or if an officer physically uncovered the found item. Then there is the ever popular, "can you open your trunk sir" which officers often claim was "assented to." This wide margin of police discretion, what impressions trigger an officer's "reasonable suspicion" and what factors cause an officer to exercise this discretion is what is specifically looked at, analyzed and criticized in terms of "racial profiling." These are the abuses that racial profiling deals with, arguing that if blacks are stopped more often, patted down more often, taken into custody more often without any basis, initially the process of booking them, searching their posessions in order to inventory them, will lead to more African-American's being charged with low-level crimes such as possession of drugs, some kind of weapon, etc. In Gate's case, it is harder to make the case that the police engaged him in the first place because of profiling. Many argue that the decision to arrest even after he was established to be rightfully in his house is "profiling" but I'm not sure I'd call it that, even if it were racially motivated, but only based on formal legal categorization and the different nature of statistical arrests that are typically studied for "profiling" arguments, since officer Crowley responded to a call an it is the selection of a "probably suspect" based on officer discretion that is specifically studied in statistics on profiling. Still, I can see where any wrongful arrest would get lumped into this category by laymen. You seem very comfortable with the idea that there are more black people in jail because black people commit all the crimes in the world. If you think about it, you may start to understand why there was a bit of an uproar in the black community when Michael Phelps was photographed and widely witnessed smoking mariuanna and it was not an issue, yet there are many black people in jail who were stopped on some vague suspicion of wrong doing and patted down and charged with marijuana possession. Similarly, Bernie Madoff's recent interview, where he wonders aloud why he wasn't arrested sooner for what seemed like a pretty obvious scheme, has to get you wondering a bit. Gates was arrested and released with no charge, but many less prominent false arrests lead to a plea on some other charge when biased exercise of discretionary arrests meet inadequate legal representation. Being deprived of liberty is very different than not getting the government subsidized job of your choice. Not getting your summer TAship is not "racial profiling" in the sense that it threatens to lead to more frequent incarcerations for you or people who look like you on illegal grounds. [being excessively comfortable with other Americans being deprived of these rights may eventually lead to someone like you getting caught up in some broad, discretionary arrest, however, even though you are convinced that black people commit crimes and only people who commit crimes go to jail. Even people who don't commit crimes go to jail if citizens are not always questioning the limit of police authority over ALL Americans.] Though it may seem unfair to you and your personal success that there are not as many government grants awarded to white men, there is an interest for universities to have a diverse set of view-points. Qualifications are not all objectively measurable, unfortunately. I'm sad to learn that when I start at the University, there won't be any white men at all to be found there. What's that? Oh, apparently there are still a few, yourself included.
Minnesotan Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 You seem very comfortable with the idea that there are more black people in jail because black people commit all the crimes in the world. If you think about it, you may start to understand why there was a bit of an uproar in the black community when Michael Phelps was photographed and widely witnessed smoking mariuanna and it was not an issue, yet there are many black people in jail who were stopped on some vague suspicion of wrong doing and patted down and charged with marijuana possession. Similarly, Bernie Madoff's recent interview, where he wonders aloud why he wasn't arrested sooner for what seemed like a pretty obvious scheme, has to get you wondering a bit. Gates was arrested and released with no charge, but many less prominent false arrests lead to a plea on some other charge when biased exercise of discretionary arrests meet inadequate legal representation. You once again exaggerate the issue. Black males have not committed every crime the world has ever seen, just like any other group in question. The point is that the evidence leads some people to the conclusion that they commit a disproportional amount of crimes. There are probably many reasons for this - economic, cultural, what have you - but I am not extrapolating this in any way in order to make generalizations about all black folks. All I am saying is that this set of facts could have influenced the decision to call the police to investigate, which seems much more reasonable than your "old white lady" example, which was patently absurd. As for smoking pot and getting charged with "lesser crimes" like concealed handguns, I think you need to take a look at what these lesser crimes have the power to do. I mean, do you think someone who is carrying drugs and a handgun is likely heading out for some innocent pheasant hunting (in the middle of Los Angeles, no less)? Doubtful. Pot use on its own is comparable to a parking ticket in most states. If you get caught smoking pot AND carrying an illegal firearm, perhaps there are deeper issues than recreational drug use. As for your claim that only white celebrities get away with pot use, I can't even count the number of black celebrities who not only use drugs, but also preach their use. Isn't that one of the three possible themes of rap music? If public use of marijuana was the benchmark, Snoop is getting away with murder! The guy should be public enemy number one! I'm sad to learn that when I start at the University, there won't be any white men at all to be found there. What's that? Oh, apparently there are still a few, yourself included. Apparently hyperbole is the only rhetorical tool you possess. The fact is, male enrollment was long ago overtaken by female enrollment. If racist, sexist policies continue in academe, white males will not have a chance unless they were born rich (as you assume we all were).
kfed2020 Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 If racist, sexist policies continue in academe, white males will not have a chance unless they were born rich (as you assume we all were). You see, I disagree wholeheartedly with the assumptions people make about white people and privilege. I was born poor, I've been poor my whole life, and I find that I am often limited in my options because of my gender and color (in fact, not only is it legal to discriminate against people like me, the government mandates it in certain hiring situations!). It might be different if people, every once in a while, stood up and applauded all of the good stuff white males have done... Minnesotan, Genuine privilege is much more intangible than -- but not entirely exclusive of -- money. I'm of course moved by your story of growing up poor and can partially relate, but this is not what 'white privilege' refers to; you're fighting a scarecrow, because any reasonable person would acknowledge the difficulties of growing up lower class of any race, anywhere. People don't go out of their way to celebrate white men because, well, that would be ludicrous. White men represent 43/44 US Presidents, the majority of major CEO's, the vast majority of Supreme Court judges over the history of the US, I could go on. Privilege, then, is partially a matter of representation in leadership -- 'Power,' for short. White male senators were extremely worried about Sotormayor allowing her identity to inflect her decision-making because, let's face it, a high precedent for this has already been set by the history of white male leadership in the US. This country's rules were first set by white men, and they're still mostly overseen by white men. The majority of professors, administrators and presidents of major universities of the US -- still white men, white men who were likely all taught (mostly) by white men, given that segregation is, historically, a lot more recent than people seem to think. So there's education. In short: white men are, historically, quite dominant. Cause for celebration, indeed. The fact is, while your class status may have kept you from thinking you had a serious chance at becoming President, etc., you never eliminated yourself from becoming these things based entirely on your race or gender. You never grew up thinking these things could be impossible. Consider the impact this is had on you, and the impact it's had on others -- and consider the fact that you've never really had to consider this before. Privilege. If you'd prefer that we discuss this in more literary terms, consider why so many "Great Books" courses -- which tend to want to offer the "best" of the West -- are nicknamed "dead white men" by their students (and, often, by the professors teaching them). Actually, I'll end this point here because the white male emphasis that persists even in contemporary literary study is hopefully pretty obvious. If not, check your syllabi. On the whole, sorry to say, can't feel too bad for you as a white male -- that is, on the basis of your white maleness. As a fellow low-income American, sure. But otherwise, no thanks. I would ask that you consider what it's like to wake up in the morning knowing that everyone blames you for every historical wrong that anyone of your skin color (whether related or not, whether within the last 100 years or not) has ever done. Or has been perceived to have done. I'm sure you haven't lost any sleep over it.
Minnesotan Posted August 3, 2009 Posted August 3, 2009 Very dismissive. But this is how anyone with a victim complex treats anyone in the supposedly dominant group. Yet, a tiny little situation occurs involving one black man, and it' WWIII around here. Let's get real for a minute. This Gates issue is not a race issue. It's hardly any sort of issue. The guy spouted off to the cops and got taken in for a cool down. He didn't even spend the night in jail. Get over it.
kfed2020 Posted August 3, 2009 Posted August 3, 2009 I hardly think anyone who offers a diatribe on the difficulties of being poor and white as you did above is in any position to accuse someone else of victim mentality. But I'm at least reasonable enough to acknowledge that this intersection of identities does have its drawbacks. If anything, I'd have expected that your experiences would have made you more sympathetic to the difficulties of other disadvantaged groups. I'm feeling now that they haven't. And I guess that's that.
Minnesotan Posted August 3, 2009 Posted August 3, 2009 I guess I would rather pull myself up by my bootstraps than sit around whining about power differences. If I feel bad about being born poor sometimes, it just makes me work harder. Luckily we live in one of the more meritocratic countries on the planet, so hard work is often rewarded. It's not that I don't sympathize with anyone's problems, it's just that I recognize that we've all got them. It doesn't help to pout.
Yellow#5 Posted August 4, 2009 Author Posted August 4, 2009 I guess I would rather pull myself up by my bootstraps than sit around whining about power differences. If I feel bad about being born poor sometimes, it just makes me work harder. Luckily we live in one of the more meritocratic countries on the planet, so hard work is often rewarded. Really? Then why are you whining about power differences? Why don't you leave the primarily government subsidized world of the University, and go get yourself a real job then, if what you need is money? Why do you think the only way to earn money is waiting for the University to apportion it to you? Why do you consider it YOUR money to be taken away from you in the first place? If you would like to make some of YOUR own money, there is a "professional" section on this blog, maybe you should visit it. These jobs were not created (the ones I and my partner have applied for, anyway). They were pre-existing positions reclassified for minority-only employees. They are TAships, RAships, editorships, or administrative/bureaucratic assistantships -- something that most grad students need to survive. You say I have marketable skills, but how am I marketable when I'm already at a disadvantage because of my race and gender. I think the backpack is on the other shoulder, these days. This is REALLY not a pull-your-self-up-by-the-bootstraps mentality. I'm a little dismayed that a rhetorician like yourself, will fall for letting the country be so easily divided on the issue of "race" or "reverse racism" by letting yourself believe that YOU are the unlucky one. You will happily support the position that the police are "keeping us safe" when they arrest Gates, because he was rude by categorizing that "rudeness" as playing the race card. Because you don't feel "appreciated," you aren't willing to stand up for the right of any American to say whatever they like in their home, after the police have seen Identification and have no legitmate reason for remaining in Gate's home, and that's sad. How much was that summer stipend you were denied? 9,000 dollars? 11,000? is that all it takes to aggrieve you to the point where you turn your back on caring whether huge swathes of Americans are deprived 4th Amendment rights?
Minnesotan Posted August 5, 2009 Posted August 5, 2009 You are the biggest hypocrite ever. You can whine all day long about the plight of your people in academe, but when someone else says there are limited opportunities for their people, you immediately suggest they leave if they don't like it. How about you start treating people equally before you start pointing the ever-present finger of racism at everyone else?
Yellow#5 Posted August 5, 2009 Author Posted August 5, 2009 Not sure who you are talking to. I am white, and, because I too couldn't afford to go directly to grad school after college, I worked for several years so that I could support myself in school. The fact is, the money apportioned to stipends is quite small, compared to what you would earn waiting tables, working as a home nurse, massage therapist, dental hygenist, hair stylist..etc. I know several people who have funded their PhDs after first getting the minimal required training required for one of these careers with pretty high earning potential and flexible hours. I'm just suggesting that, rather than being blinded by racial jealousy and entitlement issues, think outside the box.
thepoorstockinger Posted August 5, 2009 Posted August 5, 2009 I promised myself that I wouldn't wade into this mess, but here I go: I don't have a problem with the concept of "identity politics" I do have a problem with the way that what counts as an identity is often defined. Particularly in the academy people increasingly ignore class as an identity and class and poverty as forms of oppression. Race, ethnicity, class, gender and sexuality are all forms of oppression and it gets us nowhere to argue over which one is most important. (I would also be inclined to add "region" or geography to the list) Being white is an identity. Being white and poor is an identity. I would argue that systematic oppression against whites in the West is a myth, but systematic oppression of poor whites is certainly not. Different forms of oppression require different tools to combat it. Affirmative action (and let's not pretend that affirmative action is something new - we've had affirmative action in North America for centuries, it just always worked the other way and was action on behalf of whites) can be a tool to combat racism, sexism and homophobia in the present, but we need other tools to combat class based oppression as well: better public schools, more funding for needs based bursaries, reduced tuition fees, etc. for all students. Just because poor people have it shitty doesn't mean we shouldn't also try to make sure that black people don't have it shitty as well. I also feel that the "pull yourself up by the boot straps" mentality is in a way defeatist. Being born relatively poor and a minority in a (pseudo)backwater region made me want to work harder, but it also made me question the idea that anyone should be born poor at all. Systematic and structural change needs to attack class divisions as well as oppression along the lines of sexuality, gender, race and ethnicity. I also think that to some degree the role that class played in the Professor Gates incident has been overlooked by many people. There is a certain sense that Gates' shock at this comes as much from the fact that this reminded him that he's black. That he was being treated just like any other black person. At times it's come across that he's shocked that as a professional he's subject to the same treatment as poor blacks and most poor blacks who encounter this kind of idiocy by police all the time know that you just shut up when a cop get douchey if you're alone. Professor Gates felt that he could act differently given his class standing. (This is not to excuse the cops' behavior) I would also suggest that this thread should be locked. It's moved a long way off from a discussion of the issue and is now (or soon will be) just personal attacks. I know the fact that a mod is involved complicates things, but maybe another mod should step in to lock this down before it gets out of hand? I don't know if any of that made sense, I just got in the house from playing sports and am tired, but it was an attempt at an intervention on the topic.
Yellow#5 Posted August 6, 2009 Author Posted August 6, 2009 Hi Poorstockinger, Welcome. Thanks for adding your perspective. This is definitely a multi-layered issue. I agree with your observation that class and poverty is part of what defines "identity" and "identity of others": Particularly in the academy people increasingly ignore class as an identity and class and poverty as forms of oppression. You are in the History faculty, so perhaps Marxist theory isn't as prevalent there, but it is often discussed in Literature facuties (English as well as French, German, Russian, etc - mostly European Lit). This type of theory deals primarily with class and inequal wealth distribution and it's effect on the individual. I would also suggest that this thread should be locked. It's moved a long way off from a discussion of the issue and is now (or soon will be) just personal attacks. I know the fact that a mod is involved complicates things, but maybe another mod should step in to lock this down before it gets out of hand? I don't really agree that the thread should be shut down, and I for one, don't take Minnesotan's comments personally. I hope that he doesn't take mine personally, though I can see I am making him quite angry (maybe frustrated is a better word), even though it's not my intention. Difficult discussions are difficult to have, but, even if I never agree with him, and he never agrees with me, each of our point of views may be somewhat clearer, just by having the discussion. I think it's interesting that the "affirmative action" discussion cropped up on this thread, because it has NOTHING to do with whether or not Gates was "disturbing the peace" or not and should have been arrested. Yet, it seems to be somehow related, perhaps even central, to the way that some people view the incident. That is an insight I never would have had without this discussion, because I tend to see the incident within the framework of 4th Amendment rights only.
Yellow#5 Posted August 6, 2009 Author Posted August 6, 2009 I realize that my estimation of summer stipends is far too high. 2500 dollars seems to be more in the ballpark. It seems a little amazing to me that this amount of money can make someone so resentful of the "preferential treatment," minorities get, that an educated, curious person can not even bring themselves to consider that, in situations completely unrelated to the University and Academia, the Constitutionally protected rights of black Americans are frequently violated, disproportionately to white Americans, in law enforcement situations. If you believe there is nothing to this argument, please google "Tulia, Texas" and "Hearne, Texas" together with "civil rights violation" or check out this link: http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/racialju ... 50602.html I'm not really sure why 2,500 dollars summer stipends erase the need to even discuss such issues or raise concerns or suspicions of a seemingly illegal arrest, but I'm sure someone will chime in to educate me. I would think such a money conscious person would be more outraged at the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in the federal Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program that is given to law enforcement, when their arrest policies often do not make the community safer, only necessitate more of YOUR government's money be spent on housing falsely arrested primarily young, black men. (As always, I feel compelled to point out that white people, high class people, wealthy people, etc. should not make the mistake that the erosion of one groups' rights does not, ultimately, erode everybody's rights, by failing to reign in law enforcement as a matter of policy and hence investing too much unnecessary authority in the individual police officer, who may in any given situation be a very good man, or a very bad one.)
Minnesotan Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 Heh... don't get me started on law enforcement money pits. The DARE program, along with the general "War on Drugs" this country is waging against teenagers with dimebags, is bleeding the country dry. But this is neither here nor there. As for locking the discussion, as long as people behave relatively well (this is the internet, after all!), there's no need. If anyone gets carried away, I'll step back and let one of the other mods decide. To this point, there have been many frustrated remarks from all sides, but nothing deserving of a lockdown or ban. While I don't think Gates is special in any way, I agree with Yellow that the general idea of racism (like classism, sexism, religionism, etc.) needs open air, not censorship, to improve.
Yellow#5 Posted August 6, 2009 Author Posted August 6, 2009 The war on drugs is responsible for racial profiling in the first place. The landmark case was coincidentally brought in the 1990s by a Harvard grad, Robert Wilkins, who was working as a public defender. He was driving home from his fathers funeral in Maryland with his family and was stopped on the highway. The officer searched his car, including the trunk, against his consent while he and his family stood there in the rain. When he sued, he discovered it was the explicit policy of the Maryland PD to stop blacks, because they were supposedly more likely to be trafficking drugs. Racial statistics on traffic stops began to be gathered as a result of his law suit to avoid such practices from continuing. Throughout the 90s there were many organizations aggressively debating and litigating these issues, as well as conducting statistical analysis to try and quantify the effect it has on the black community. Unfortunately after 9/11/2001 Judges became much more deferential to law enforcement, in the interest of national security, and some of the progress made in the 90s has been rolled back somewhat. Perhaps, now is a good time to start looking into it again, rather than continuing to defer to the police, who -- while they are often good, idealistic people, they are also financially interested so not terribly objective. Of course they will argue that arrests are good for society in general. It increases their opperating budget. You may not think Gates is "special" but to me, he is indicative of one more unnecessary arrest that is not making us safer, and as a matter of policy, I have to ask, why are taxpayers so tolerant of this type of waste? There were something like 7 cops at his house that day. Why not demand police have a more compelling reason before they arrest people...ANY people.
Minnesotan Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 If someone is seen breaking into my house (even if it's me), I truly hope someone calls the police. I don't see the investigation of potential crimes as a waste of money.
Yellow#5 Posted August 6, 2009 Author Posted August 6, 2009 Investigation took one, maybe two officers. It was after that investigation was completed, when Officer Crowley radioed in (as captured on the 911 tapes) said I have a guy here named Henry Louis Gates, he lives in the house but he's unruly...keep the cars coming. All those cars were expensive. The break-in case was closed.
Minnesotan Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 But the unruliness case was still open. Again, this is what happens when you act like a douchebag to cops who are just trying to do their jobs.
kent shakespeare Posted August 8, 2009 Posted August 8, 2009 But the unruliness case was still open. Again, this is what happens when you act like a douchebag to cops who are just trying to do their jobs. "just trying to do their jobs" by arresting people in their own homes for no apparent legitimate reason. once the police found there was no break-in, they should have apologized and left. Staying only made it worse. there are lots of rich white people who act like douchebags whenever they are delayed/questioned for 5 minutes by authorities (even outside of their homes) who would get a personal apology from the police chief and/or mayor after such a mistake. we respect and appreciate good police who do their job well. But not all of them do - some are quite abusive little Napoleons. We all need to be vigilant of the bad sort - not assume cops are automatically of a special unquestionable ubercitizen class (that sort of thinking facilitates abuses).
Minnesotan Posted August 9, 2009 Posted August 9, 2009 "just trying to do their jobs" by arresting people in their own homes for no apparent legitimate reason. Besides the 911 call saying there was someone breaking into the house? Or are you neglecting his refusal to cooperate, his disturbance of the peace, or his threatening actions? there are lots of rich white people who act like douchebags whenever they are delayed/questioned for 5 minutes by authorities (even outside of their homes) who would get a personal apology from the police chief and/or mayor after such a mistake. we respect and appreciate good police who do their job well. But not all of them do - some are quite abusive little Napoleons. We all need to be vigilant of the bad sort - not assume cops are automatically of a special unquestionable ubercitizen class (that sort of thinking facilitates abuses). On the other hand, not every incident involving cops is a conspiracy. Not every interaction between races involves the white man keeping a 'brother' down. You've all been so well trained to see abuse and claim victimhood that it's everywhere you turn. As for the white folks, I hope they get processed and set free, as well. Nothing teaches a person better manners than a big bureaucratic hassle taking up their entire day. Next time they'll say "please" and "thank you, officer!"
kfed2020 Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Not every interaction between races involves the white man keeping a 'brother' down. I hope you're not aiming for a racially mocking tone, there. You've all been so well trained to see abuse and claim victimhood that it's everywhere you turn. Is the opposite device -- seeing victimhood nowhere -- really so much more productive? Or are you neglecting his refusal to cooperate, his disturbance of the peace, or his threatening actions? Still not convinced of his threatening actions -- neither of his actions being threatening, nor of the cop being threatened. How is a relatively young, built police officer (you know, those people with guns, night sticks, etc.) going to be threatened by a tired, admittedly loud, old man? That doesn't add up. Nothing teaches a person better manners than a big bureaucratic hassle taking up their entire day. Next time they'll say "please" and "thank you, officer!" And, as far as Gates is concerned, a "Yes, massah" for good measure. Because suggesting that a black American appeal to a white authority by having 'good manners' has no historical precedent at all.
Minnesotan Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Must everything be histrionics and hyperbole with you?
kent shakespeare Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Besides the 911 call saying there was someone breaking into the house? Or are you neglecting his refusal to cooperate, his disturbance of the peace, or his threatening actions? On the other hand, not every incident involving cops is a conspiracy. Not every interaction between races involves the white man keeping a 'brother' down. You've all been so well trained to see abuse and claim victimhood that it's everywhere you turn. As for the white folks, I hope they get processed and set free, as well. Nothing teaches a person better manners than a big bureaucratic hassle taking up their entire day. Next time they'll say "please" and "thank you, officer!" As I understand it, Gates showed ID and cleared up that he was in hi own house... yet the cop still refused to apologize and get out. Instead, he arrested the man. He did co-operate enough to show his ID - it was the cop who did not. Who said anything about conspiracy? It's a fact of life that the wealthy and powerful tend to get treated with kid gloves. Friends of cops get treated better, too. Even relations thereof. I've personally seen it happen again and again. Generalizing about who has and hasn't been "well trained" to see x,y or z is quite frankly an ignorant assumption, one that puts your own ideology ahead of anyone else's experience. Maybe that's what you need to get you to rationalize some of the things wrong with our world. Hooray for you, but you'll have to forgive those of us who understand better. At the end of the day, a man was treated poorly by police in his own home. Maybe he just happened to be black. But if something similar happened in rural white Montana (or anywhere else in Palin's alleged "real" America), every right-winger in the land would be howling. Their silence on this matter is quite telling, no matter how you toss the "claim victim-hood" diversion.
Minnesotan Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 In your quest to claim legitimacy, you assume too much. Nobody gives a flying @#$% if a white man gets arrested. There is no NAAWP to rouse the colorless rabble. Nobody cries "Race! Race! Race!" when bad things happen to white folks. (Or Asian folks, for that matter, since they seem to do well on standardized tests.) It's all a bunch of hypocritical bullshit. "Equality means more for me!"
Recommended Posts