Racism

[wessexgirl]

As a matter of fact I have. There was a man working in the same office as myself and, because he knew that I had a Chinese girl friend, took it upon himself to make a 'racist' joke, in my presence, about the chinese.
Did I hold it against him? No, because although he was in many ways an ignorant person, he has every right to his opinion and it is not my business to try to persuade him to be otherwise.

Following that logic, anyone is free to say and do anything they want, no matter how bad. I suppose it was ok for Hitler to rant his obscene bile, as it was just his opinion? It doesn't matter that said opinion resulted in the outcome it did. As for laughing along with the co-worker, at your girlfriend's expense, do you have no shame? It doesn't matter whether she was there or not. How gallant. Paraphrasing a literary gentleman, it was badly done, Brian, badly done indeed.

[Virgil]

Oh how did I miss this.

So the last 40 years have been nothing but prosperity and moving on up for blacks, but at the same time they are plagued by poverty, unmarried mothers, valuing the wrong aspects of culture, low graduation rates, etc.?

Obviously you're in a mentality that rationalizes outcomes. You seem to hold the outdated notion that has this equation: Racism causes poverty which leads to sub cultural dysfunctions. Baloney. Sub cultural dysfunctions cause poverty. The average white person doesn't give a damn about keeping blacks down. If he holds prejudiced views he holds them for asians, Indians, muslims, and jews and others. But it's only blacks that have this cultural dysfuntionality. Just look at the number of black men who have spent time in jail. I think it's something like one in three have commited some sort of crime that sent them to jail. Between unmarried mothers, drug use, crime, high school drop out rates, you couldn't devise a more dysfunctional set of variables to cause poverty.

You try to square these contradiction away by pinning this on a sub-group within the larger community that makes up the black population of America, but at the same time use imprecise language that also makes it sound like you're speaking of the black community in general, not just a minority:

"I believe the race consciousness will end when African-Americans break out of the problems that have plagued them and do not have the high crime rates, go on to high college graduation rates, and are prosperous."

You're damn right I'm saying that; there is no one to blame but themselves. Compare the results of blacks from carribean and african countries? They don't have anywhere near this generational poverty. Once they out grow their immigration growing pains, they do quite well. There is a sub cultural problem with american blacks.

Racism exists. Institutional Racism exists.

Show me. Show me. I can point out all the Equal Opportunity laws, the EEO's in every company that ensures blacks get equal consideration for promotions and hiring, all the law suits that have gone on in the past forty years to ensure this is enforced, the afirmative action that goes on in hiring and college entrences. Today we have a black president, the biggest media star is Opra (and media is a genre that requires visual idnetification), the biggest musical star is Michael Jackson, and there are black CEO at a number of companies. That's on my side of the ledger, what's on yours? I fail to see what's on yours. Do you live in the real world? I haven't checked your age or your occupation but I would guess you're either a college student or a college professor.

By institutional racism we don't just mean it exists in a few individuals in society, but it is a system of biases, prejudices, stereotypes, and assumptions that proliferates through our institutions, such institutions may include: our businesses, our banks, our schools, our literature, our stores, etc. If institutional racism didn't exist then there wouldn't be publishers who consistently white-wash characters on book covers by turning characters who are black into white people

Anyone that is a benefit to a business, they will be hired and promoted. It doesn't matter if they're green, orange, or purple. Any group of people, white or asian or any ethnicity, who have those dysfuntions will have the same poverty. All you have to do is look at poor white demographics.

Also, why do you assume race consciousness doesn't exist for Asians (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laos, etc. as there is no one Asian group), Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahi, Ethiopian), or other ethnic groups?

I have no idea what this means. When I was talking about Gates, I said he was being race conscious. He was thinking in terms of race, not the cop. I think everything that has come out supports that.

I don't expect to convince you. I'm sure this notion is locked in for you. I will leave you for the third time with the quote from Thomas Sowell: "If jews had waited for the end of anti semitism to make it in America, they would still be waiting." Do yourself a favor and look up Thomas Sowell: http://www.tsowell.com/.

[MarkBastable]

Following that logic, anyone is free to say and do anything they want, no matter how bad. I suppose it was ok for Hitler to rant his obscene bile, as it was just his opinion? .

Actually, although I profoundly disagree with Brian Bean on this one, I do believe that anyone is free to say anything they want, no matter how bad. I wouldn't censor speech because that's tantamount to censoring thinking.

So I do think it was okay for Hitler to rant his obscene bile. I think it was not okay for the German people to act on it. I contribute to various anti-fascist organisations, but I would argue for the right of the BNP to campaign in elections.

My position on racism, and on everything, is best expressed in the words of the French thinker Charles de Russon: I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death my right to make fun of it.

[Petrarch's Love]

I have only been able to skim this thread, and have no time to make a lengthy response to the many, many points in it. I did, however, notice Lynne50's post and Brian's approval of it and felt that I should respond to Lynne's post on one crucial point. What Lynne said:

I have read with much interests many of the posts so far. In my humble opinion, what we should do is instead of saying racism doesn't exist, we should all imbrace racism. What I am attempting to say is, that we are all, deep down, racists. We all are proud of our cultural backgrounds, which we should be. We should be celebrating our differences. And, like others have said already, racism will never go away. It's clearly impossible. It's just the way the world is. I do think that people, of all ethncities, need to be able to laugh at themselves a bit more. If you can laugh at a joke about yourselves within your own ethncity, then it should be fair game for others too.

There is a difference between making blatant racial remarks that are hurtful, and ones that are said out of ignorance and being uneducated about the facts. I think it is all of our duties, to educate these people, as respectfully as one can, and not let people get away with these attitudes.

I guess I'm naive. I grew up in an all white suburb. My city, was known for it's racism. I should say,that my hometown city is considered middle-low income and economically is probably even lower now. However, I never heard anyone speak badly about minorities, except for my grandfather, and I didn't see him that often. I never met a black person, for my whole entire school career. There was only one Jewish person in our school. Talk about being isolated. I don't consider myself the least bit racist, though. I enjoy interacting with all types of people.

Let me get back to my orginal thoughts, And they were??

We can not wipe out racism.. It's too important to us all. On the one hand we need to celebrate our differences, yet on the other we have to use commonsense. Racial profiling should not be used, but you can understand where it comes from, esp. in these times.
I think some of the burden should rest with our schools. They should promote differences, rather than deny them. I think we should have more school assemblies on this subject. Maybe there should even be public forums, like President Obama's small town meetings, to address these matters.
Opening dialogues is the only way to lessen people's fears. I think fear drives racism and why should we all be living in a fearful society. How time consuming and wasteful is that!

Lynne--I can tell that you have put some sincere thought into this post, which is why I wanted to respond to some of your points. I think that I agree with the core of what you are saying, but I think in some places you are a bit muddled, either in the way you express your ideas or in your uncertainty about a complex issue. The line that most concerns me is your suggestion that we should "embrace racism." I think this is a problem with a lot of discussions on race, which end up confusing issues of "racism" with issues of cultural difference. The OED definition of "racism":

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occas. in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities.

Racism does not mean simply that you are proud of your own race or nationality. It means that you think that other people are fundamentally different than you based on their racial group and that some of these racial groups are inherently superior to others. This is, flat out, a wrong belief. The moral guideline as far as "racism" is concerned is absurdly simple. Whenever we find ourselves making a judgment about a person based solely on the racial group that they were born into, it is a wrongly motivated judgment. If racism does exist within us, we must not embrace it.

The more complex issue, which is the issue that I believe you are raising, is that of cultural difference. Difference in cultural background is a tremendously complex issue, and one that is sometimes linked to race, but sometimes unconnected, and sometimes linked to race in a false way. For example, in the US, people may refer to "black culture," but that is a very difficult thing to define. Does it mean a ghetto style rap culture? Does it mean a celebration of African ancestry and of the African American music and art that stems from that ancestry? Do these two cultures overlap? Is it safe to assume that any given black person in America identifies with either of these cultural backgrounds? I've known black people who get bothered each way. My friend who isn't that fond of rap culture, has no desire to reconnect to her roots in Africa and really just wants to do a good job in her career and go about her life like any normal person gets remarks from some black people about being an "oreo" and betraying her race, and remarks from some white people about only getting into her high end professional position because of affirmative action (which she has never asked for or benifitted from). She also gets people from all races occasionally assuming that she should speak a certain way or should be wearing certain things purely based on her race. On the other hand, I know another young woman who grew up in a home and an area where people did have a way of talking that is characteristic of what many would think of as "black" and who is very involved in and proud of trying to preserve many of the postive aspects of the music, speech patterns, customs, etc. that come from the distinct culture of some black communities and in which she finds much to be proud of. She gets sweeping judgments from some people about all black culture being "ghetto" or violent, or poor, or generally lowbrow and unworthy of serious attention (even some personal assumptions about herself based on her clothing style). She also gets some people making the assumption that because she is for "black culture" that automatically means that she's in tight solidarity with everything "black," which is not necessarily the case when it comes to, for example, certain rap lyrics that glorify misogyny or violence. (I have put the word "some" in italics several times above, because I want to stress that I am referring to "some" and not "all" of the groups I refer to).

I don't bring up these two friends of mine as the examples of how race and culture interact, but as suggestions of the many ways that race and culture do and do not necessarily line up and the ways that judging the culture and experience of a person we encounter can be much less simple than we sometimes allow it to be.

To get back to your post, I think that you are right that there are doses of both pride and prejudice (Apologies JA. Yes, I'm rolling my eyes at myself, but they're the most suitable terms for this discussion.) in each of us. We are proud of who we are, of our families, our own backgrounds, the music and language we grew up with, the values we were raised to treasure. We all have a strong instinct and desire to preserve these things, to preserve our culture because our own identities are at stake in the preservation of that culture. I think it is also true that we are all inclined, at some times more than others, to be prejudiced against cultures that seem radically different than our own, and sometimes turn very ugly when we feel that another culture threatens our own way of living and turn defensive against it. That defensiveness on the part of any cultural group can quickly harden into hatred.

This is where I think that it is absolutely essential that we keep in mind that we are not embracing racism. It is by rejecting that view that we are able to accept that all people are equally human regardless of their race. That does not mean that all people are good. It means that all groups of people are the same underneath it all. If you keep that in mind, then it takes the focus away from a "those people" mentality in which you are in a "good" group and others in a "bad" group. Instead the question becomes one of figuring out where the best in people of all groups lies. This involves looking at the good parts as well as the bad parts of a culture you are wary of. It involves, not only this, but looking at the culture you identify most with and being able to see it for its good and bad qualities. When we become comfortable with the fact that having pride in our selves and our cultural heritage does not mean that we can never admit that there are aspects of that culture that are flawed, then we may be more tolerant of the flaws in other peoples' cultures, (and perhaps even of the flaws in other people ). We may be able to see that it is hurting rather than helping our own culture to be blind to its flaws and blind to the positive values and ideas of another culture that could help to strengthen it.

I'm not saying that people in real life think this clearly and idealistically all or even most of the time, or that it is often in any way clear how to react to differences in culture in the real world. Keeping in mind that human beings are all of a kind regardless of race or culture, and being aware that everyone, including ourselves, has a bit of pride and prejudice, certainly is a good start at being able to keep an open mind, develop a balanced sense of humor about ourselves (a good quality for many reasons) and a sense of empathy toward others. I completely agree with you that opening candid dialogues is important for helping to sort these things out and helping them to understand how deeply true it is that we are not so different from the "other" as we may think. I also think you are right that differences between people should be recognized rather than denied as though they did not exist. The question is at what level and in what way you stress these differences. Our upbringings, our outlooks, the way we see the world, the way we dress, may be different, but the feelings and desires of the people underneath these customs are not, for better or for worse, a bit different. The latter must be heavily stressed before the former can be adequately addressed.

As long as I'm here, I thought I would post regarding the OP's question about the Harvard professor case. My personal opinion is that both parties were hot headed and over reacted. I think it's a very good case for discussion because there is much for and against both side. My first reaction when I heard about it was to roll my eyes and think, oh boy, two phenomenal egos clashing. Cops and Harvard professors are both pretty used to having their way. I think cops sometimes go over the top with expecting every single person in every single case to jump instantly or suffer the consequences. I also have a feeling that black studies professors spend their whole lives studying racial issues and may have a tendency to sometimes go over the top with seeing racial issues in every possible situation (this is not something I attribute to black studies professors alone, most academics see issues to do with their subject in every possible situation). So I have a feeling that the professor over reacted to the requests of the police (and probably not only because of racial defensiveness but because he was jetlagged and in a lousy mood after coming off a flight to China and having to bust his own door down) but I also think the police over reacted to a little ranting from some skinny 58 year old academic. Tempers clearly flared on both sides.

On the other hand, I do understand that there were some socially attributable factors on both sides that contributed to these over reactions. I do understand that the police are nervous about people obeying orders for a reason, because they do face dangerous situations and are responsible for the safety of themselves as well as the community. In this case the officer clearly was coming to the situation initially from the perspective of a good cop with a clear conscience, which I'm sure would be true of many on the police force. It really was not unreasonable for him to expect a reasonable amount of compliance to his authority.

I also do recognize, however, that there are instances when the police do react differently to people of color than they do to white people. I do not mean that this is always the case, that white people don't have bad encounters with police, or that people of color don't have perfectly fine interactions with the police, but I do think that a black man is often treated with more suspicion than a white man. There is, in any case, a profound amount of distrust for police in the black community, and many instances, both colloquial and officially documented, of problems with police officers and race, which is something this professor would be keenly aware of. Based on, either what he has seen, heard, or perhaps even experienced directly, in his mind he felt that he might be putting himself in a vulnerable position by stepping outside that door when ordered.

However justified or not it may be, it is a fact that there is distrust of the police on the part of many minorities. This is not good for the police, and it is not good for minority groups themselves to be hard line against the group that is meant to help maintain order in our society. It is not going to allay this mistrust to say that racism does not exist, that they are imagining things, or that they need to just shut up about the issue, when people know that there are racist incidents between citizens in the police, and officers with power that hold racist views, such as this member of the Boston PD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylK11FxxLCw
http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...r_suspend.html

I do not think that the initial incident between the professor and the officer that arrested him was anything more than some unfortunate quick tempers on both sides and a social miscommunication. However, if attention to that case helps to bring out a clearly racist officer like the one who wrote the "monkey" remarks, and occasions the very definitive response on the part of the police and the city that we won't tolerate that sort of officer in the police, then I think that the discussion has been well worth while. Sending the message that we won't tolerate racism in our police system helps everyone.

As an added note, I personally think Obama's remark that the police acted "stupidly" in this case with the professor seems pretty on target. I don't think that remark has anything to do with race. Whether he was white or black or purple, I think when you get to the home of an older, pretty non- threatening looking man who explains the problem and shows you his ID, then you could probably calm down a little and figure out that it is highly unlikely that a man in his own home is a danger to your life and limb. I can see the cops not being too happy with him yelling at them, but I doubt that they were as much scared as a little PO'd. I bet people say unpleasant things to cops a lot, and I bet they could take it. If he was getting physical and hitting the officers that would be a different matter, but a little hot headed yelling isn't really grounds for arresting someone. So I think the police acted a little stupidly: not egregiously, not with hatred, not unforgivably, and not in a way that is anything to sue over, but a little stupidly. I think the professor acted a little stupidly too, but the cops were the ones with the balance of power in this situation, so if anyone needed to exercise a little forbearance it might have been on their side. In any case, I think sitting them down for a beer was definitely the best solution. A case like this really could be settled with a little discussion. In this case, making it a national discussion as well couldn't hurt, especially since I think both men in this incident are reasonable, well intentioned people, making it easy for us to see the pros and cons for each of their sides without needing to call one right and the other wrong.

[Emil Miller]

Following that logic, anyone is free to say and do anything they want, no matter how bad. I suppose it was ok for Hitler to rant his obscene bile, as it was just his opinion? It doesn't matter that said opinion resulted in the outcome it did. As for laughing along with the co-worker, at your girlfriend's expense, do you have no shame? It doesn't matter whether she was there or not. How gallant. Paraphrasing a literary gentleman, it was badly done, Brian, badly done indeed.

Well, let me say that, being half-Irish, the idiot you refer to was a supporter of the IRA and an enthusiastic reader of the Guardian, your own preferred newspaper it would seem. Which is why I couldn't take him seriously enough to feel offended by his remark.

[Jozanny]

Petrarch: Perhaps the word one wants to offer Lynne is ethnocentrism, which, like anything else, has positive and negative aspects, but I concede we naturally root for our tribe, whichever one it is.

Good to see you back, btw.

I am attempting to tread cautiously myself with this discussion, as much of my feelings have been shaped by anger and frustration, and the personal pain of institutional bias inflicted on me in the course of my lifetime. Many disability activists compare what the disabled are subject to with slavery and genocide, and at times I *see* why, and at times I think the analogy presumes a great deal.

But to get off my hobby horse for one moment , I do not think Gates was profiled, really, but I do believe the escalation between Gates and Crowley had a racial component to it.

[wessexgirl]

Well, let me say that, being half-Irish, the idiot you refer to was a supporter of the IRA and an enthusiastic reader of the Guardian, your own preferred newspaper it would seem. Which is why I couldn't take him seriously enough to feel offended by his remark.

I don't read the Guardian, so you're making a very big assumption there. And the fact that he was an idiot as you put it, doesn't alter the fact that what he said was presumably offensive. I have some sympathy with what MarkB says in the sense of letting people spout their opinions, but I'm afraid I could not let the comment pass without showing my feelings towards it, and I certainly wouldn't have laughed along with him. If such things aren't challenged, then it's tantamount to agreeing with them.

[Emil Miller]

Actually, although I profoundly disagree with Brian Bean on this one, I do believe that anyone is free to say anything they want, no matter how bad. I wouldn't censor speech because that's tantamount to censoring thinking.

So I do think it was okay for Hitler to rant his obscene bile. I think it was not okay for the German people to act on it. I contribute to various anti-fascist organisations, but I would argue for the right of the BNP to campaign in elections.

My position on racism, and on everything, is best expressed in the words of the French thinker Charles de Russon: I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death my right to make fun of it.

How very generous of you. It would seem that you still have a lot to learn.
When I lived in Germany, I was invited by my boss to dinner, and during the course of conversation, I asked him why the German people had voted overwhelmingly for Hitler, which couldn't have happened in England. He grew angry and replied " Sie haben nicht das Not gehabt!" Which means: 'You didn't have the necessity." So before we start criticising the Germans for acting as they did, it is as well to remind ourselves that with 6 million unemployed, a similar number of communist supporters and Russia breathing down their neck, they took the only way out.

[MarkBastable]

How very generous of you. It would seem that you still have a lot to learn.
When I lived in Germany, I was invited by my boss to dinner, and during the course of conversation, I asked him why the German people had voted overwhelmingly for Hitler, which couldn't have happened in England. He grew angry and replied " Sie haben nicht das Not gehabt!" Which means: 'You didn't have the necessity." So before we start criticising the Germans for acting as they did, it is as well to remind ourselves that with 6 million unemployed, a similar number of communist supporters and Russia breathing down their neck, they took the only way out.

Oh, don't be silly.

[wessexgirl]

How very generous of you. Let me tell you that you still have a lot to learn.
When I lived in Germany, I was invited by my boss to dinner, and during the course of conversation, I asked him why the German people had voted overwhelmingly for Hitler, which couldn't have happened in England. He grew angry and replied " Sie haben nicht das Not gehabt!" Which means: 'You didn't have the necessity." So before we start criticising the Germans for acting as they did, it is as well to remind ourselves that with 6 million unemployed, a similar number of communist supporters and Russia breathing down their neck, they took the only way out.

Russia breathing down their neck.......in 1933? I can't quote the number of communist supporters off the top of my head, but Hitler and his machinery had dealt with them, in their own inimitable way, as they did with all opposition, paving the way for his "election" victory. He did a very good job on propaganda. If you're going to tell a lie, tell a big one, was his maxim I believe. He propounded the myth of the evil communists, along with the evil Jews, who incidentally were, according to him one and the same, but they were also blamed for being evil capitalists! His thinking was muddled to say the least, but hey, whatever it took to get power he did.

[amarna]

ever crossed anyone's mind that it were capitalist corporations and concerns who had an eager economic interest in the colonization of poland and russia, in cheap slave workers and in the expropriation of jewish enterprises and who financed the rise of the german nazi party, prestige advertising inclusive? seems to be a blind spot.

[Virgil]

As long as I'm here, I thought I would post regarding the OP's question about the Harvard professor case. My personal opinion is that both parties were hot headed and over reacted. I think it's a very good case for discussion because there is much for and against both side. My first reaction when I heard about it was to roll my eyes and think, oh boy, two phenomenal egos clashing. Cops and Harvard professors are both pretty used to having their way. I think cops sometimes go over the top with expecting every single person in every single case to jump instantly or suffer the consequences. I also have a feeling that black studies professors spend their whole lives studying racial issues and may have a tendency to sometimes go over the top with seeing racial issues in every possible situation (this is not something I attribute to black studies professors alone, most academics see issues to do with their subject in every possible situation). So I have a feeling that the professor over reacted to the requests of the police (and probably not only because of racial defensiveness but because he was jetlagged and in a lousy mood after coming off a flight to China and having to bust his own door down) but I also think the police over reacted to a little ranting from some skinny 58 year old academic. Tempers clearly flared on both sides.

On the other hand, I do understand that there were some socially attributable factors on both sides that contributed to these over reactions. I do understand that the police are nervous about people obeying orders for a reason, because they do face dangerous situations and are responsible for the safety of themselves as well as the community. In this case the officer clearly was coming to the situation initially from the perspective of a good cop with a clear conscience, which I'm sure would be true of many on the police force. It really was not unreasonable for him to expect a reasonable amount of compliance to his authority.

I also do recognize, however, that there are instances when the police do react differently to people of color than they do to white people. I do not mean that this is always the case, that white people don't have bad encounters with police, or that people of color don't have perfectly fine interactions with the police, but I do think that a black man is often treated with more suspicion than a white man. There is, in any case, a profound amount of distrust for police in the black community, and many instances, both colloquial and officially documented, of problems with police officers and race, which is something this professor would be keenly aware of. Based on, either what he has seen, heard, or perhaps even experienced directly, in his mind he felt that he might be putting himself in a vulnerable position by stepping outside that door when ordered.

However justified or not it may be, it is a fact that there is distrust of the police on the part of many minorities. This is not good for the police, and it is not good for minority groups themselves to be hard line against the group that is meant to help maintain order in our society. It is not going to allay this mistrust to say that racism does not exist, that they are imagining things, or that they need to just shut up about the issue, when people know that there are racist incidents between citizens in the police, and officers with power that hold racist views, such as this member of the Boston PD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylK11FxxLCw
http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...r_suspend.html

I do not think that the initial incident between the professor and the officer that arrested him was anything more than some unfortunate quick tempers on both sides and a social miscommunication. However, if attention to that case helps to bring out a clearly racist officer like the one who wrote the "monkey" remarks, and occasions the very definitive response on the part of the police and the city that we won't tolerate that sort of officer in the police, then I think that the discussion has been well worth while. Sending the message that we won't tolerate racism in our police system helps everyone.

As an added note, I personally think Obama's remark that the police acted "stupidly" in this case with the professor seems pretty on target. I don't think that remark has anything to do with race. Whether he was white or black or purple, I think when you get to the home of an older, pretty non- threatening looking man who explains the problem and shows you his ID, then you could probably calm down a little and figure out that it is highly unlikely that a man in his own home is a danger to your life and limb. I can see the cops not being too happy with him yelling at them, but I doubt that they were as much scared as a little PO'd. I bet people say unpleasant things to cops a lot, and I bet they could take it. If he was getting physical and hitting the officers that would be a different matter, but a little hot headed yelling isn't really grounds for arresting someone. So I think the police acted a little stupidly: not egregiously, not with hatred, not unforgivably, and not in a way that is anything to sue over, but a little stupidly. I think the professor acted a little stupidly too, but the cops were the ones with the balance of power in this situation, so if anyone needed to exercise a little forbearance it might have been on their side. In any case, I think sitting them down for a beer was definitely the best solution. A case like this really could be settled with a little discussion. In this case, making it a national discussion as well couldn't hurt, especially since I think both men in this incident are reasonable, well intentioned people, making it easy for us to see the pros and cons for each of their sides without needing to call one right and the other wrong.

A very good post Petrarch. But I have to disagree with one thing. I see nothing, nothing wrong in anything the cop did. Not a single thing. I don't know if you've read the transcripts, but there was no racial suggestion either by the dispatcher or Officer Crowley in response. However, Prof Gates went way over the line in first accusing the cop in something he didn't do and then insulting him at the top of his lungs repeatedly, even swearing at the Officer's mother. If anything Crowley was incredibly restrained in his apporach. In my book, anyone that insults a cop in the pocess of him doing his duty, then that person deserves to be arrested and his a$$ thrown in jail. The police department should never have dropped the charges. There may have been over reactions here, but the only person who was racial in their thinking and arttitude was Gates And Obama too for jumping to the conclusion that a white cop was being racist. Let me tell you, Obama has seriously lost whatever police vote he might have enjoyed, and that goes for black cops too.

[Emil Miller]

Oh, don't be silly.

Obviously lost the argument.

Russia breathing down their neck.......in 1933? I can't quote the number of communist supporters off the top of my head, but Hitler and his machinery had dealt with them, in their own inimitable way, as they did with all opposition, paving the way for his "election" victory. He did a very good job on propaganda. If you're going to tell a lie, tell a big one, was his maxim I believe. He propounded the myth of the evil communists, along with the evil Jews, who incidentally were, according to him one and the same, but they were also blamed for being evil capitalists! His thinking was muddled to say the least, but hey, whatever it took to get power he did.

You really should stop believing popular misconceptions and get to grips with the facts. Hitler came to power when emergency powers, known as an enabling act, giving virtual dictatorial powers to the Chancellor, had already been enacted under former Chancellor General Schleicher. He couldn't deal with the communists until after he had been elected. There is some doubt about the "big lie" theory as to whether it was uttered by Hitler or Goebels but, like so much attributed to those times, it may be apochryphal.
Whether you, or anybody else, like it, he came to power legally due to the extreme conditions of the early 1930s.

[amarna]

An let's not forget that Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany temporarily were flattering each other. When the Molotow-Ribbentrop-pact was closed in 1939, Soviet Russia gave up any support for the left wing opposition in Germany at once and started turning jewish and communist refugees to the Gestapo. The moral effect this treason had for any antifascist opposition is certainly comprehensible.
Apart from this, the Western powers were flattering and supporting Nazi Germany as well, remember the Munich pact of 1938.

[MarkBastable]

Obviously lost the argument.

The argument was about the extent to which the principle of free speech ought to be mitigated by circumstances - which began with your absurd assertion that no one should try to persuade anyone of anything. That argument seems still to be going on.

The argument about Hitler coming to power is a side issue, and what was silly was your suggestion that you have some kind of insight because you knew a German bloke once who thought something. If that were any way to run an argument, I'd simply cite my time in Germany and I'd quote another couple of Germans who think something else. And where would that get us?