This is what I am talking about. This is non-sense. It is the same non-sense Obama was making when he said "typical white person." The word typical has a precise meaning and unless Obama has encountered enough white people, and obtained what they think/feel when they seek black people, to constitute an accurate representation of white people, then his use of the word "typical" is potentially rather problematic. In fact, it is rather illogical to use the word "typical" in regards to a group of people, when one has not obtained enough information about the "group of people" to make such a claim.
Again, studies have demonstrated
many times over that the majority of white people find encounters with those from cultures other than theirs uncomfortable, and take prejudicial action against such people (for instance, as was cited earlier, the average white woman will tend to lock her car doors when a black man approaches the car, but not when a white man does the same). Obama, as a student of political science and a law professor (not to mention community organizer in a community where this sort of thing could be an issue), probably knows a few of these studies quite well. So stop harping on him for using "typical". He was completely justified in its use, regardless of how much you might not like that reality. Maybe you're not a typical white person, and his characterization doesn't apply to you. But it still holds true for the population at large.
Obama just assumes he has encountered enough white folk to constitute as an accurate representation of the white folk group. It is this type of "assuming" certain characteristics about a race/racial group this society has been condemning for the last 40 years.
No, he didn't assume that at all. I'm not sure why you would choose to make that assumption yourself. He probably based that on study, not personal experience. He simply used his personal experience as an anecdote to demonstrate how he's had to deal with it himself.
I made these remarks in my previous post and had you taken the time to read them, carefully consider them, then perhaps you would have not made the error of characterizing my post as a "whole useless rant."
And, given that you've now been shown to be totally incorrect (not to mention having run wild with a totally off-base assumption), the "whole useless rant" line actually seems pretty justified.
Since you commit the same reasoning error as Obama when you say, "We know without a doubt many whites look at blacks as suspect and they do this of their own volition.," then it seems to me you could have benefitted from paying attention to my "whole useless rant." How do you know without a doubt many whites look at blacks as suspect?
Because study supports it.
It seems to me you are potentially using the same poor choice of words as Obama.
No, again, when empirical study supports something, we're generally completely justified in citing its findings. What, are you arguing with the studies? All of them? Is that how totally reluctant you are to believe that maybe,
just maybe, everything he said was accurate? I'm not sure where those blinders you are wearing came from, but you need to get rid of them. They're hurting your arguments.