Luck must be on my side...
Here's a study that compared red light camera data and police stops done at night at a distance (the idea being that at least it would be much more difficult to identify the race of the driver). One would imagine that they show blacks being offenders much less often, revealing that police making daylight stops are biased...but they show the exact opposite. Link is on the page...
It shows that of the drivers stopped, 55% to 58% were black. While that is more than half, it's not a lot more than half, so it's not conclusive proof that black people are more prone to criminal behavior than whites.
It also doesn't disprove the experiences of black drivers who feel they're stopped for driving while black more than whites do.
Here's another study using red light cameras (Since they're completely unbiased) and once again, they mirror police traffic stop rates, revealing little to know bias on behalf of cops.
http://journalistsresource.org/stud...al-justice/racial-profiling-red-light-cameras
From that page...
“If the resulting action of law enforcement and that observed by the camera is similar, then this redefines the issue of racial profiling,”
Keep in mind, these studies are buried. No one wants to publish a story about a study that shows police aren't racially biased. Why do you imagine that is?
Because it doesn't prove what it claims to prove. First, no one is contending that most police offers are overtly racist. And second, systemic racial bais is hard to quantify, since it deals with assumptions, not statistics. As we've discussed before, statistics can be misleading, such as assuming that because black people are arrested more, they're more prone to criminal behavior.
Such as the possibility that perceived ethnicity/race of a name has nothing to do with call backs and it's entirely based upon familiarity.
Which is white privilege again. If white names are more common, they're more familiar; that's a privilege not everyone has.
You can search for "Bill Maher white privilege" or "Beige Against the Machine" and see it. It's about 5-6 mins of funny.
I'll check it out.
I'd say that since we've tried one thing for the past 50+ years, maybe it's time to try something else.
Especially if that one thing we've tried hasn't always been a good thing.
I'm actually old enough to remember when blacks didn't value criminal activity. When they didn't seem to view an education and job as "white america"'s way forward. From what I can tell at least, it started to change dramatically in the late 80s when suddenly "street cred" became so desirable to young black men and an attitude of "I'm going to get mine no matter what".
I have no doubt that it's not a coincidence that it coincides directly to the collapse of manufacturing in the U.S. I don't think it's an issue of biology at all.
Yet it amazes me when whites like yourself are saying "we've got to get this racial bias under control" when the number one killer of black men 18-32 in this nation is...other black men. Not heart disease, cancer, suicide, etc....but other black men.
How much of that is intertwined with the issues of systemic racism and de facto segregation of black communities? I think if the issues of racial inequality were improved, you'd see an improvement of that issue as well. It certainly wouldn't make it worse.
That's a choice that a community makes...about what a community values.
I guess that depends on how you define a community. Is the black community part of the American community or not?
Did you notice how the idea of a black community is separate from the idea of the American community? That's some white privilege right there.
Well unfortunately, it seems to be turning the other way these days. I read a whole article (I think in Huff po) recently by a black woman who essentially tried to redefine racism as something only white people do. When black people do it...It's merely prejudice. That's not an attitude of equality...and it's emboldened by the likes of you.
I don't even know who that person is, so I certainly never emboldened her. I also disagree with that statement, if it makes a difference.
Fat inequality, height inequalities, beauty inequalities....some things can be minimized, others are human nature.
Understanding why we have a prejudice doesn't mean we have to adhere to it. We can strive to be better.
I thought we already established that personal experiences won't help examine this problem.
They're necessary to examining it, but they're not all we need to go by. A pattern is made up of many personal experiences, but an exception or two doesn't invalidate the pattern.
If only one side makes that effort...eventually they will resent that fact and it will rebound on everyone.
Which is why I wish we would all make the effort, and not assume only one "side" is to blame.
Wonderful! Wanna join me in acknowledging that there's a serious problem with the glorification of crime/violence in the black community? Wanna acknowledge that with me? Wanna acknowledge that the problem of self-victimization and blaming others needs to stop?
Sure. Those are all parts of the problem, no question. They're also not all of it, either.
Aren't some names always going to be more common than others though? Perhaps the government should step in and distribute names more equitably.
You should check out a book by Ira Levin (of Rosemary's Baby fame) called This Perfect Day.
I think it'd be better if we tried to actively work against the idea that more familar equals better, as regards people's names.
I don't think we have any studies on that...so I don't know where you're getting it from.
Logic. If you don't see someone's resume, you don't call that person back for an interview.
Me too...but I'm more concerned about the part where we start reflecting the media.
Start? We always have. Just as it reflects us.
Is "I'm in love with the coco!" A good message for today's black youth?
No idea. Who's coco?
Is this the Conan O'Brien thing again?
Acknowledging something exists is not the same as approving of it.
Nope, last thing I saw him in was Prometheus. He was competent.
Didn't see that...but I recommend Luther highly.
Minstrel shows had whites playing black characters in black face....not even remotely close to what I'm suggesting. Nor do I see what this has to do with Elvis.
Minstrel shows were a form of entertainment originated by blacks, dating back to the days of slavery. Over time, white actors started mimicing the black actors, to the point of doing it covered in burnt cork, until the most popular versions of minstrel shows were those with white actors. Elvis' fame is largely attributed to the fact that he took what was considered "negro" music and put a white face on it. Artists like Led Zeppelin did the same thing when they took blues music by artists like Willie Dixon and Muddy Waters and popularized them.
So there's a long tradition of white performers appropriating art forms originated by black performers.
Led Zeppelin was a big fan of southern american blues...are you suggesting that they shouldn't have played it because they're white?
Nope. But take the example of Whole Lotta Love, a song originally written by Willie Dixon, and adapted by Led Zeppelin without crediting Dixon as the writer. The band was sued in 1984 and they lost. Dixon has been subsequently credited. The song, by the way, was released in 1969, so that's 15 years without credit to the original writer.
Just because everyone thinks "When the Levee Breaks" is their song doesn't make it wrong.
It is their song, and at least they credited it to the original writers.
But all this is still part of a long-time tradition of white performers replacing black performers and popularizing an art form. So your redoing the Cosby Show with white actors isn't defying tradition, it's upholding it.
I don't think it's purely luck.
It ain't based on facts, because you don't have any in this case.
Well what did you mean when you said police investigate black and white crime differently?
I mean they approach it differently. They often assume that, when they enter a black neighborhood, they're going to encounter crime, so any activity they see is colored by that assumption. Seeing a black person drive an expensive car in a poor neighborhood, for example, could be interpreted as that person having stolen it, even if there's no reason to assume the car is stolen in the first place.
Also, seeing a black person in a typically white neighborhood sometimes leads to the assumption that the person is out of place. Take, for example,
the case of Henry Louis Gates in Cambridge, MA. He was arrested for forcibly entering a home in an upscale part of Cambridge, in the vicinity of Harvard University. Gates is black. He was also the homeowner (and a Harvard professor). Now, granted, that particular incident could have been better handled by both Gates and the arresting officer, but it's not a stretch to believe that had the cops seen a white man trying to break into the same residence, they probably wouldn't have overreacted in the same way.
Isn't it at least possible for him to distorting the truth based upon his perception?
What part has been distorted, do you think? The number of times he's been stopped? If the number isn't exactly 30, it's closer to that number than 2, that's a fact that isn't open to perception.
As to why he's been stopped that many times, I'll grant you, there's no reason to assume each and every cop is some southern redneck sheriff out of Smokey and the Bandit, but it's hard to argue convincingly that race plays no role whatsoever.
Or have the lessons of Ferguson been lost on you already?
Nope. I'd say we'd all benefit from occasionally stepping back and reconsidering the situation before we escalate it.
Are you serious? Race is the only consideration to make before running for president?!?
Not at all. I only asked why it took 145 years for a black man to even be nominated.
Black culture in the U.S.
What's funny is when you talk to some blacks who've been here for very little time. I worked really closely with a PR guy for some time who is as black as they get. He was disgusted by black culture in the U.S. and got upset when other blacks called him black...as far as he was concerned, he'd have none of it, he's Puerto Rican.
Or we could look at the culture of black america and ask, "is anything wrong with this picture?"
My point being, the issues are cultural and social in nature, not due to biology. So they're intertwined with the whole of our culture and society, not separate from it.
We can only look at data we have. Do you want to do that or not?
Sure, but the point is that we can't ever be looking at the whole picture, so statistics can be misleading. So can personal experiences, which is why we need to look at both, and other things besides, to get a better picture.
The culture of black america.
Which is part of the culture of America, as a whole. One isn't separate from the other.
Exactly...what is that environment and what does it tell them?
That they're part of the US, but considered by many to not be. Which leads to a whole nest of problems right there.
Well the police appear to have taken great strides towards equality.
True, but that isn't to say there's still room for improvement.
There's room for improvement there, too. But there's only so much they can do to change the systemic issues they're faced with, the system has to change first.
Black culture in the U.S....it's amazing that you haven't thought of it yet, but at least I'm here to help you out.
Um, not only have I thought of it, it's the very point I'm making! The problems are cultural and social, and as such, need to be addressed by our culture and our society. And black culture isn't separate, it's part of the whole. Segregating it has led to a lot of the problems and issues we still face today.
Whoa...how so? How have I (as any white man) been hurting a black man's chances at a job?
I didn't mean to accuse you, personally; it was more a general plural "you."
This is exactly why I've gone out of my way to try and avoid assigning blame.
Some people feel the same way about the war on drugs.
I agree. Same idea applies: if the old ideas aren't working, let's try new ones.
It depends...some flaws have their advantages.
If it's adventageous, not sure why you'd still consider it a flaw, exactly. But what specific advantageous flaws are you referring to?
Oh yea...that's the only way to create equality, right? Hold one down to raise another up?
Only if you assume that raising one up automatically holds one down. I've no problem with giving a helping hand to those who haven't had one up to this point.
How's affirmative action been working out anyway?
Imperfectly.
-- A2SG, you know of anything that's perfect in this world?
