Racism

[The Atheist]

The problem with anecdotal evidence, is that it is worthless.

Couldn't agree more!

For every case of police abuse, there is a case of someone like Gates purposefully trying to generate police abuse either for attention, or to get off, or whatever else.

Yep, and we never know the difference, unfortunately. Like everyone else, no cop is perfect and any confrontational situation can easily spiral into something else.

Pity so much time's being wasted on it.

[Virgil]

Sorry mate; I know this is going back over a page, but it bothers me greatly.

You are basing your opinion on what happened on knowing what some witnesses claim to have seen at some time after the altercation started.

I find it incredible that their "evidence" would give any kind of clear picture of what had, and was, happening, yet you have decided the truth based solely upon that.

I have no dog in this fight, so I'm perfectly objective on the whole thing. It seems obvious to me that every side is seeing it through their own-coloured spectacles and taking it as gospel.

The saddest part of the entire episode is summed up by this piece - which will also help Brian realise why some people do heavily distrust cops!

Sorry but President Obama has essentially conceded the facts. His only dispute now is whether the cop should have gone to the extent of actually arresting him or just accepted the verbal abuse. That's a judgement I can't make not being there.

What anectodal evidence? There is a police report that I read and the corroboration of two other cops. That's not anectdotal.

The actual police report: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%2...terstitialskip. I think you'll see that Gates was uncooperative from the start. If you don't believe the policeman, then what can i do.

[The Atheist]

What anectodal evidence? There is a police report that I read and the corroboration of two other cops. That's not anectdotal.

That's exactly what anecdotal evidence is!

The cops, having taken a position, are hardly likely to contaminate themselves by not sticking to the story. All of the evidence is anecdotal.

The balance of evidence seems to indicate that the cops were reasonably within their rights - and Obama has obviously accepted that, as he must - but we still have no idea of the body-language, the verbal exchange and what actually went down inside the house to start the whole thing.

As I said, I'm not judging the thing, because it doesn't affect me, but I do think that jumping to conclusions has become a national sport.

[Virgil]

That's exactly what anecdotal evidence is!

The cops, having taken a position, are hardly likely to contaminate themselves by not sticking to the story. All of the evidence is anecdotal.

The balance of evidence seems to indicate that the cops were reasonably within their rights - and Obama has obviously accepted that, as he must - but we still have no idea of the body-language, the verbal exchange and what actually went down inside the house to start the whole thing.

As I said, I'm not judging the thing, because it doesn't affect me, but I do think that jumping to conclusions has become a national sport.

Well then believe whatever you want to believe. But I have not heard Gates dispute the claims. Perhaps he has and I missed it, but it does not seem to be in any of the news articles.

[Admin]

That's exactly what anecdotal evidence is!

The cops, having taken a position, are hardly likely to contaminate themselves by not sticking to the story. All of the evidence is anecdotal.

The balance of evidence seems to indicate that the cops were reasonably within their rights - and Obama has obviously accepted that, as he must - but we still have no idea of the body-language, the verbal exchange and what actually went down inside the house to start the whole thing.

As I said, I'm not judging the thing, because it doesn't affect me, but I do think that jumping to conclusions has become a national sport.

Eh... no, or rather, it depends on scope.

The interaction between Crowley and Gates would be anecdotal when putting for a statement of racism, or lack thereof, in the criminal justice system.

The interaction between Crowley and Gates is anything but when putting forth a statement of who was in the right in the interaction between Crowley and Gates.

[LMK]

I think in general, there are those among us who cry foul when they can. There are those who are "offended" and who rush to ignite fires the best they can by pulling on those flame starters like using the word "racism." I don't know their reasons; a feeling of entitlement, a need for attention, over reaction/sensitive...?

This particular case is not one I can comment on. Mr. Gates must now deal with the fallout as must the officers involved even though all charges were dropped.

There are good and there are not-so-good people in positions of power all around us; some are police officers, some are our supervisors, country leaders, etc. and we do rely on them to make decisions fairly with utmost respect and tolerance for the dignity of the human person who ever that person may be.

But sadly, there will be some who don't respect and it might be the one in power weilding the authority who makes a bad decision or behaves poorly or it might be the other person who cries foul even when they are at fault.

Someday, I hope, we will all be considered people, not labled by things that separate us but if needed by things that unite us.

[Jozanny]

Feelings toward groups is not the same thing as racism. I doubt you really think that all blacks are criminals. I don't know if you know the facts of the Gates incident. He was not arrested for breaking into his house. He was arrested for the verbal tirade he went off on after they asked for identification. He was obviously beligerant and the police asked him to stop with the insults on two occaisions. The police had no idea he owned that house and no one hsa a right to be so beligerant when police are conducting an investigation. They had a call that someone was breaking into that house. When police ask me for something I accomodate.

Huh, from what I have read from lawyers who know Gates, he did not meet the disorderly conduct threshold for arrest. He is a nationally respected scholar who was dressed down by a cop, and it should not have happened.

[Emil Miller]

Is it not strange that for those of white skin that have lived, and been prepared to mix, in many "black" African states e.g Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroons, Uganda, there are very few instances of reverse discrimination.
Are the values relating to race in these countries more mature & balanced?

No it is a matter of numbers. The proportion of whites to the indigenous population of the countries you have mentioned is very small compared to the number of blacks in the USA or UK. If a similar proportion of whites were to supplant themselves in those African countries, their attitude, quite rightly, would be very different.

[JBI]

I can't speak for Canada or anywhere else in the world, but there is no institutionalized racism in the US. I have no idea what the past history has to do with current status. Everyone acknowledges past history and corrections have been made the last 40 years in the US.

You're joking, right?

Next to the American government, Canada doesn't even compare. The same sort of residential school system in Canada existed in the States too, hate to break it to you, except perhaps you guys wiped them off the map more thoroughly.

[MANICHAEAN]

Interesting argument.
At what stage does an infux of "outsiders" cause the racial issue to emerge.
Growing up in London as a child in the 40s & 50s, a foreigner was more than likely to be a French onion seller! If the truth be told, those from Wales, Ireland & Scotland were regarded as a bit exotic as well. It was not till the 1960's if my memory serves me correct when we had the first real post war race riots in Notting Hill over mainly West Indian labour recruited to supplement the transport & hospital resources.
The point could also be made that the history of the UK was one of successive waves of new immigrants/conquerers i.e. Angles, Saxons, Danes, Vikings, Norman French etc. I presume that each new infux was regarded with resistence, ill feeling & prejudice but over time they adapted & contributed to become an updated version of what is today's Britisher.

[Emil Miller]

Interesting argument.
At what stage does an infux of "outsiders" cause the racial issue to emerge.
Growing up in London as a child in the 40s & 50s, a foreigner was more than likely to be a French onion seller! If the truth be told, those from Wales, Ireland & Scotland were regarded as a bit exotic as well. It was not till the 1960's if my memory serves me correct when we had the first real post war race riots in Notting Hill over mainly West Indian labour recruited to supplement the transport & hospital resources.
The point could also be made that the history of the UK was one of successive waves of new immigrants/conquerers i.e. Angles, Saxons, Danes, Vikings, Norman French etc. I presume that each new infux was regarded with resistence, ill feeling & prejudice but over time they adapted & contributed to become an updated version of what is today's Britisher.

Because race and politics are inextricably mixed, it is very difficult to discuss it in meaningful terms in this forum but you are right about the relative cohesion between the citizens living in London during the immediate post-war period. If, however, those from Wales, Ireland and Scotland were regarded as a bit exotic, it is not difficult to imagine what the English thought with the introduction of thousands of West Indians into their cities.
It is naive to believe that they were invited solely for the purpose of supplementing the labour force. The driving force behind the British Nationality Act of 1948, which conferred British nationality on all Commonwealth citizens, was the internationalist mentality that characterised the Socialist government of the day and the need to maintain a supply of raw materials from what had formerly been the British Empire. This Act was passed without reference to the indigenous population and set the scene for the first race riots that broke out in London and Nottingham 1n 1958.

As for the waves of immigrants/conquerers arriving in in the what constitutes the present day UK, it is important to make a distinction. The conquerers had to fight their way in and the others were allowed in, but whereas the others had been a handful of religiously persecuted people from Europe, the West Indian influx was of a completely different order and culture that had a disruptive impact on the way of life as experienced by indigenous UK citizens.
In my view, the racial and cultural differences are irreconcilable and will remain so. Which brings us neatly back to the thread's original post.

[MANICHAEAN]

I take the point about the difficulty on this venue of discussing race without dovetailing in the political aspects.You will therefore no doubt bear with me if I do not pursue that path.
But let us look at a couple of other items mentioned by you:
1. " the West Indian influx was of a completely different order and culture that had a disruptive impact on the way of life as experienced by indigenous UK citizens."
I agree that in the initial stages, yes. But since then, the West Indian immigrants of two generations have substantially adapted to us / as we have adapted to them and I am appreciative of the richness of their contribution to the British scene for example in; music, cuisine & dance. Don't be niave enough to get caught up in the sterotype yardie/rude boy/drug dealing/violence prone mugger. Your stance would have in earlier years suggested the temptation to rebuild Hadrians Wall, drive the Welsh back up into hills and issue a coracle & compass at Fishguard to everyone from the Emerald Isle who strayed outside of Kilburn High Road.
2. "The racial and cultural differences are irreconcilable and will remain so."
No they are not, as time will tell. Take as a case in point, one of the West Indian islands, Jamaica. The population are a cocktail mix mainly of: european, negro, indian & chinese descent. They also have an undercurrent of intolerence based upon the degree of skin darkness, (or as they express it: musty, fusty & dusty!).But overall they are proud to be Jamacian.

Finally, returning dutifully to the original thread:
Yes, some elements are too quick, (and I might add superficial), to cry "racism"
Yes, it does cause strain & irritation on race relations.
But you have to move beyond that and have more faith in the ability of individuals to find common ground. What does cause more of a strain, is trying to take more immigrants into a country than they can reasonably absorb in too short a period.

[Emil Miller]

I'm afraid you are reading too much into what is a very limited contact between blacks and whites in the UK. Despite enormous efforts by various governments since 1948 to integrate West Indians into the prevailing culture, the vast majority of whites do not have contact with them unless forced to by virtue of their work or some other situation that cannot be avoided. Go into any public house in central London at any time of day and you will see proportionately fewer blacks than their numbers would imply. After a dispute with the staff at my usual pub, I have recently been drinking at various other venues and, although most of them have been packed in the evenings, I have not seen one black person among the clientele. Whether the government like it or not, the great majority of white people will not agree with an act of parliament that was forced on them without their consent, often moving abroad or out of urban areas rather than suffer what many regard as an unacceptable situation. It's a known fact that many parents have actually moved house rather than send their children to schools in predominately black areas.

[Virgil]

You're joking, right?

Next to the American government, Canada doesn't even compare. The same sort of residential school system in Canada existed in the States too, hate to break it to you, except perhaps you guys wiped them off the map more thoroughly.

What are you talking about? No one is prevented from going to any school within their district. The problem is that people live in uniform neighborhoods and so schools tend to be predominantly of the neighborhood ethnicity. In order to try to alliviate this concern, which seems to be a concern more by intellectual think heads than anyone actually living in neighborhoods, black or white, there has been a forced busing effort in many districts to cross pollinate ethnicities. There is no institutionalized forcing of people to segragated schools as your comment implies. There is nothing wrong with residential school systems. People don't want to ship their kids across the city or state.

[JBI]

What are you talking about? No one is prevented from going to any school within their district. The problem is that people live in uniform neighborhoods and so schools tend to be predominantly of the neighborhood ethnicity. In order to try to alliviate this concern, which seems to be a concern more by intellectual think heads than anyone actually living in neighborhoods, black or white, there has been a forced busing effort in many districts to cross pollinate ethnicities. There is no institutionalized forcing of people to segragated schools as your comment implies. There is nothing wrong with residential school systems. People don't want to ship their kids across the city or state.

You completely misunderstood the posts - the residential school system, which existed in the US as well, was a system set up to assimilate Aboriginals into white society - generally, it involved essentially kidnapping children, and sending them to religious schools, where their culture would be destroyed, language rights removed, and where the not so holy priests would have their way with them, as is want for priests.

Of course, the American system didn't last as long, and pretty much went out in the 20s, but the general damage had been done. Of course, the difference between the systems is, whereas Canada's aboriginal affairs is based on treaties and reservations, in the US aboriginals are treated as any minority, essentially, without any special treatment. In that sense then, the US is not "as racist" in that their policies aren't inadequate - they simply do not exist. The criticism in Canada essentially deals with Canada not doing enough, and not providing enough, whereas in the US, the government does nothing, and doesn't intend to do anything, as, quite simply, the vast majority of the Aboriginal communities have been all but wiped out, and the Native population base isn't very substantial in the country, in contrast to Canada.

As for not having racist policies - perhaps in practice, but keep in mind, country policy involves Domestic and foreign affairs, on all levels of government, including the police, which is a government institution, and is the issue here. Canada doesn't have racist "Policies" in the legal sense, there just are racial issues that haven't been addressed properly, such as lack of funding for reserves, and poor education and living standards in certain areas, not unlike the US.

In general, neither country is particularly racist, but it's a bit ridiculous to deny at least on some level racist programs (I am not allowed to get into contemporary politics, so I will leave it at that).