By Jeff Adachi
Note: The following remarks were given by San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi on Aug. 1, 2013 at the Criminal Litigation Ethics Seminar at UC Hastings College of the Law.
Good afternoon. I want to thank UC Hastings and Professor Rory Little for inviting me to speak at this Ethics Symposium.
This year is very special for public defenders and the indigent defense community. 2013 marks the 50th Anniversary of the Gideon v. Wainwright decision. It’s hard to believe that just five decades ago, a person did not have a right to a public defender or court appointed- lawyer except in a death penalty case. Were it not for Clarence Earl Gideon, a poor inmate in a Florida prison convicted of burglarizing a pool hall who wrote a handwritten petition to the US Supreme Court demanding a lawyer, we might not have this basic right that we now take for granted. But even today, the right to counsel is far from fully realized. Public defender offices, for the most part, are still treated as the stepchildren of the criminal justice system, under resourced and understaffed.
In California, we’ve had public defender offices since the early 1900′s thanks to Clara Foltz, California’s first woman lawyer and a graduate of UC Hastings. She spent over 20 years advocating for a public defender system, and finally succeeded in 1921, the year my office was founded.
This crisis in indigent defense is one of the greatest ethical dilemmas in our legal system. If there is to be liberty for all, then a basic contradiction exists if a poor person’s justice means being represented by a public defender who is handling 500 felony cases. A few years back, I sat on the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Indigent Defense and I was able to see the quality of representation throughout the United States. I can tell you that even today, the poor quality of representation provided to people in the criminal courts remains a major problem. In many states, public defenders do not have the power to refuse cases when their caseloads exceed what any lawyer could possibly handle. Yet the system, including judges, prosecutors and defenders, often turns a blind eye to what amounts to everyday injustice.
I have chosen a rather unconventional subject for my talk today. Rather than focus on ethical hypotheticals about what a lawyer should do with a smoking gun, I decided to ask each of you to carefully consider a subject that affects every aspect of our practice as lawyers and shapes human affairs: the subject of implicit or unconscious bias.
The premise of my talk today is that we as lawyers and leaders in the legal profession must become more aware of implicit bias in everything that we do, and the implicit bias that lurks within ourselves. It is not an easy thing to do. Because our profession is built on judgment involving other human beings, bias is hard if not impossible to escape. There is not a human being, probably not even the Dali Lama or the Pope, who can claim to be free from bias.
Bias is defined as an inclination of temperaments or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives in reference to objects, people, or groups. Note how the definition of bias uses the word “expense” to describe the damaging effect of bias. The harm done by bias is often unintended. In fact, when it comes to implicit or unconscious bias, by definition, we are unaware of the manifestation of our bias, and we may be equally unaware of its cause.
As trial lawyers, we know that bias is very difficult to elicit when selecting jurors, particularly in sensitive areas. Who among us likes to identify ourselves as racist or homophobic or classist or unfair or prone to stereotyping? These characteristics may be buried deep below our consciousness, and we may refuse to acknowledge it, even to ourselves or our close friends. Why we would divulge these things in a courtroom?
Judges may shy away from issues that make them personally uncomfortable. I remember as a young public defender, representing a gay man who was falsely arrested for indecent exposure by a homophobic police officer who was harassing gay men who frequented the park. When I asked the judge to ask questions of the panel regarding prejudices they might hold against gay men and homosexuality, the judge replied, “You do it, I can hardly bring myself to say those words.” This was a long time ago, but I was reminded of it when I began thinking about how our biases affect our willingness to address issues as judges or lawyers.
However, there is no one concept that has more application to what we do as lawyers than unconscious bias. Ours is a profession based on judgment. Unconscious biases threaten the very foundation of our justice system.
The concept or law, if you will, of unconscious bias is not new. There are various terms that are used to describe bias other than “actual” bias. Implied bias and inferred bias are sometimes used interchangeably, though in law, these terms have different meanings depending on how they are applied.
Where bias is said to be so strong, the law will presume bias. The concept of presumed bias dates back in this country at least to Aaron Burr’s trial for treason, where Chief Justice Marshall noted that an individual under the influence of personal prejudice “is presumed to have a bias on his mind which will prevent an impartial decision of the case.” “He may declare that notwithstanding these prejudices he is determined to listen to the evidence and governed by it; but the law will not trust him.”
Of particular interest is the ABA Criminal Justice Standards. For the first time, bias will be prohibited by both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys.
According to Standard 4-1.6, Defense counsel should not manifest or exercise, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
For prosecutors, Standard 3-1.6 sets even a higher bar, prohibiting bias in exercising prosecutorial discretion. The draft rule goes even further, however, in requiring “a prosecutor’s office should regularly assess the potential for biased or unfairly disparate impacts of its policies on communities within the prosecutor’s jurisdiction, and eliminate those impacts that cannot be properly justified.”
If it were only that easy. And what of unconscious bias? How do we prohibit unconscious bias?
I want to talk about three examples of unconscious bias in three very different contexts.
The first comes from science, or more specifically, neuroscience. Groundbreaking research has shown that not only does unconscious bias influence a person’s decision making, but it creates a physiological response. University of Washington and Harvard University psychology professors Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji developed the theory that much of human social behavior is driven by learned stereotypes that operate automatically when we interact with other people.
Neuroscience studies have confirmed that when we feel fearful, threatened or anxious, the regions of our brains known as amygdalae are activated. Using MRI tests, scientists have found that these nodes activate when we see things that frighten us, such as spiders or snakes. They also activate when we see anything or anyone we believe to be threatening.
In one study, they showed an African American male face to a Caucasian person. The amygdala activated more than when viewing the face of a white male. The studies show the amygdalae activate even more when viewing a person with darker as opposed to lighter skin.
These studies prove that the way we react to people of ethnicities different from our own is hardwired into our brains and generate biases of which we’re unaware.
Professor Greenwald developed the Implicit Association Test known as the IAT to measure implicit or unconscious bias. I highly recommend that you take a few minutes to take one of these tests. These tests not only measure implicit bias, but they also demonstrate how unconscious biases are created.
You can find the test at www.projectimplicit.net.
The test asks you to consider an image, a product or a face, and then you are asked to categorize that image as good or bad. Then you are presented with a series of words that connote good and bad. You are asked to use the computer keys to indicate your choice. When our values and rules align with a principle, we are able to process the choice very quickly; when our rules run counter to choice we are presented with, we hesitate. So the IAT measures the hesitation we experience when our rules are incongruent with the choices we are presented.
The tests reveal that Caucasian people, and to a lesser though significant extent, Asian, Latino and even Native American people, have a strong bias against African Americans. White respondents were more likely to associate positive words with images of white people, and negative words with black people.
For example, 87% of white respondents showed a strong preference towards whites over blacks, and also overwhelmingly.
These preferences do not end with word associations. In another test, respondents were asked to sentence various individuals to jail time for the same crime. The researchers found non-blacks were more likely to sentence African Americans to higher sentences, based on facial features and skin color alone.
The second example of unconscious bias I’d like to discuss is the Trayvon Martin case. Most of us have become familiar with Trayvon Martin’s story through what we’ve seen on TV or read in the news. There has been much discussion of the impact of race on the outcome of the case. But the lens of neuroscience may give us the greatest insight into this story.
In his 911 call, George Zimmerman said that that Trayvon “looks like he is up to no good” or that “he’s on drugs or something.” He also said that Trayvon, “looks black.” Zimmerman saw Trayvon as threatening even though Trayvon had not behaved in a threatening manner. “F…ing punks, these assholes, they always get away,” Zimmerman said. Even though Trayvon was on his way home from the store, holding Skittles and an iced tea, he was not able to convince Zimmerman, at least through his appearance, that he was just walking down the street, minding his own business.
This is where implicit bias comes in. As we discussed earlier, amygdala activation levels match implicit racial bias levels. If someone sees a threat, then implicit bias will increase the threat they feel. As a result, someone can see an African American man, decide that he is a threat because he is African American, and then become overly aggressive toward him. And this is something of which they may not even be conscious.
We may ask how implicit bias may have affected the police who responded to the scene. As the neighborhood witnesses testified, the police immediately acted to protect George Zimmerman. They surmised that his actions were justified and immediately concluded that he had acted in self-defense. They may have identified more with Zimmerman’s predicament than the fact that Trayvon’s bloody body was lying on the street. They failed to take witness statements, coached Zimmerman so that his statements would fit within the “stand your ground” law, filed false reports and did not contact Trayvon’s parents for three days.
Why didn’t the police feel more empathy for Trayvon? Studies have shown that human beings have a strong physiological reaction to other people’s pain. A reaction known as sensory motor contagion or pain empathy happens when we see someone we care about being hurt or injured. Just closing our eyes and imagining the injury suffered by another can create this physical reaction.
In one study, people were shown three videos of three different hands being poked with a hypodermic needle. One hand was white, another was black and the third was painted purple. People’s level of sensory motor contagion or pain empathy was measured. As Caucasian people saw the white hand being poked, they felt a high level of pain empathy. As they watched the purple hand being poked they felt a smaller amount of empathy. But as they watched the black hand being poked, they felt no pain empathy.
It is possible that the police literally looked at Trayvon as he bled and felt nothing. At the same time it is possible that they looked at Zimmerman and felt empathy for his tenuous legal situation.
The same could be said for the jury. With whom did the jury, which did not include any African Americans, empathize? George Zimmerman or Trayvon? Did they have the same reaction that Zimmerman did to a young man in a hoodie in a place he supposedly did not belong? What about the prosecutors who prosecuted the case? Race was not mentioned in that courtroom, and I assume it was a deliberate choice by the prosecution team, which did not include any African American prosecutors. The defense was credited with a “smart move” of bringing an African American intern to sit at the defense table. It is said she was placed there to prove that Zimmerman was not a racist. But race was not an issue the defense wanted to raise in court. One of the jurors interviewed on CNN summed up the issue of race in the trial by saying “I think all of us thought race did not play a role.”
We must recognize that implicit bias is widespread. It is not uncommon that in our society, thousands of young black men are presumed to be criminals, up to no good, or threatening. Their innocent behavior or minor infractions can be viewed as profound affronts. They are not all shot like Trayvon Martin, but they can be more frequently disciplined, suspended and expelled from school than their white classmates, relegated to juvenile halls, jails and prisons, not hired, quickly fired or simply forced to watch as people cross to the other side of the street, lock their car doors or clutch their purses when they walk by.
There are literally hundreds of neuroscience studies that bear out the biased reactions we have in our brains and how they affect everyday life. The killing of Trayvon Martin is profoundly senseless and no stack of scientific studies will make it make sense. But we can look through the lens of neuroscience to increase understanding and to find meaningful solutions.
The third example I’d like to mention is a case that I’m handling. A client I represented at a jury trial was convicted last May in a homicide case. After the verdict, which I felt was unjust, we learned that the jury foreperson had been convicted of a criminal death threats charge four years before he served. He was actually represented by our office, but he did not disclose this on the juror questionnaire he filled out in my case. We immediately filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that my client’s right to a fair jury venire was violated by the juror’s failure to disclose his criminal history.
As it turned out, this juror had very strong views about what had happened to him. He felt that he had been wrongfully convicted in his case. At first glance, you might think that this would make him more sympathetic to my client. But when he was called to testify at the hearing, I learned that he was very upset at the public defender who represented him, and he blamed my office for his jailing and conviction. At various points in the hearing on the motion he claimed he was fair, even in the face of all of the animus. But one thing he acknowledged is that he probably held both a conscious and unconscious bias against my office and my client. We go back to court next week, but one of the things I am exploring is whether to call a psychologist to testify about unconscious bias, and how it may have affected this juror’s ability to serve on the jury.
I recently had a chance to meet Kimberly Papillon, an attorney who specializes in unconscious bias and its impact on the legal system, who has studied implicit bias in the legal system. The IAT results for judges have shown that U.S. judges rank within 1 percent of the general public in bias against African-Americans.
Papillon’s work explores not only how unconscious bias affects judges’ decisions, but also its impact on how district attorneys decide whether to press charges against someone, how public defenders determine whether to push for plea agreements for particular clients, and how jury members will react to certain defendants.
In addition to my work as a public defender, I’ve also become interested in making films. One of the films I made – the Slanted Screen – was about the stereotyping of Asian Americans that occurs in Hollywood films and television. I interview Lois Salisbury, who was then the director of Children’s Now, an organization that studies the effect of the media on children. What she found is that both conscious and unconscious biases are the result of exposure we receive as children to stereotypic image. Specifically, television portrayals of minorities result not only in unconscious bias among non-minorities, but of minorities as well.
As prosecutors and public defenders, it is critical that we continue to work toward recognizing the effects of bias, both on ourselves and in our workplace. We must begin by taking a critical look at what we do. Perhaps start by taking the IAT and see what it tells you about biases or preferences you may hold.
Despite its physiological roots, social scientists are striving to develop ways people can override unconscious bias more consistently. They have found that, among other things, exposure to diversity in social environments such as workplaces and schools can help lower unconscious bias. So the good news is that there is a cure!
So implicit bias can be overridden but it takes a conscious effort. It’s not just a matter of awareness. You can’t eliminate bias by merely saying, “I’m going to try harder not to be biased.’=” “We can override on some occasions, on many occasions, but eventually our brain defaults to our implicit associations. So this is something of which we have to be constantly mindful.
I’d like to end my talk with a quote from Judge Learned Hand:
“We may not stop until we have done our part to fashion a world in which there shall be some share of fellowship; which shall be better than a den of thieves. Let us not disguise the difficulties; and, above all, let us not content ourselves with nobel aspirations, counsels of perfection, and self-righteous advice to others. We shall need the wisdom of the serpent; we shall have to be content with short steps; we shall be obliged to give and take; we shall face the strongest passions of mankind – our own not the least; and in the end we shall have fabricated an imperfect instrument. But we shall not wholly have failed; we shall have gone forward, if we bring to our task a pure and chastened spirit, patience, understanding, sympathy, forbearance, generosity, fortitude, and, above all, an inflexible determination. The history of man has just begun; in the aeons which lie before him lie limitless hope or limitless despair. The choice is his; the present choice is ours. It is worth the trial. “
thanks for posting this by the sf public defender, it’s a fascinating piece. i’ll be interested to see how people respond to the concept of implicit bias since i think it more accurately describes what happened in the trayvon martin case.
Look at DP try and stoke the fire for David. I’ll bite.
There was no racism in the Trayvon Martin case as was noted by Trayvon’s parents, the defense and the prosecution attorneys, unless of course you want to cite Trayvon calling Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker”. Enough of the race baiters trying to stir up the crap.
the concept of implicit or unconscious bias is not the same as racism. so as soon as you state there is no racism in the trayvon martin case, you’ve already missed the point.
what i like about mr. adachi’s speech is that he brought in the latest in nueroscience to understand the reaction of both zimmerman and how the police initially responded.
i’m still stuck in the same place – does zimmerman interpret martin’s “threat” the same if he’s white rather than black?
Give it a rest.
this is the key right here: “In his 911 call, George Zimmerman said that that Trayvon “looks like he is up to no good” or that “he’s on drugs or something.” He also said that Trayvon, “looks black.” Zimmerman saw Trayvon as threatening even though Trayvon had not behaved in a threatening manner. “F…ing punks, these assholes, they always get away,” Zimmerman said. Even though Trayvon was on his way home from the store, holding Skittles and an iced tea, he was not able to convince Zimmerman, at least through his appearance, that he was just walking down the street, minding his own business.”
As a doctor, I deal with the concept of implicit bias on a regular basis. This affects medical outcomes as well as judicial outcomes. We have been presented on a number of occasions information on how the race and/or gender of the patient affects how likely they are to receive a given diagnosis and treatment given the same presenting symptoms. In both the medical and judicial realm, there are of course multiple factors that affect how an individual case is approached. However, I believe that the evidence upholds the concept that both conscious and unconscious bias affect outcomes.
…[i]….Neuroscience studies have confirmed that when we feel fearful, threatened or anxious, the regions of our brains known as amygdalae are activated. Using MRI tests, scientists have found that these nodes activate when we see things that frighten us, such as spiders or snakes. They also activate when we see anything or anyone we believe to be threatening….[/i]
Based on the above comment, things will get progressively worse as our current society unwinds. A perfect positive feedback system?!?
I think it was at last year’s Justice Summit held by Adachi, they had a panel on the research done using MRI’s which can clearly so some psychiatric conditions like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. We are entering a new era where a lot of our afflictions can actually be measured. Of course the law hasn’t caught up to these technological changes nor have we adapted yet to what it means for things like punishment and rehabilitation.
“Based on the above comment, things will get progressively worse as our current society unwinds. A perfect positive feedback system?!? “
How so?
DP and GI
[quote]i’m still stuck in the same place – does zimmerman interpret martin’s “threat” the same if he’s white rather than black?[/quote]
To me the issue is not whether or not there was a racial bias. Obviously, we are never going to know.
If the bias were unconscious, Zimmerman himself would not know. If it were conscious, does anyone believe that he is going to admit it ? To claim that there was or was not racial, or age, or clothing style, or any other kind of bias only gives evidence of our own unperceived bias since it is obviously impossible to know without a continuously recording monitor of our central nervous systems whether or not bias is in play.
Claiming to know whether or not their was bias is in itself a missing of the underlying point that bias is often unconscious and thus not subject to verification by the individual themselves. What would seem to me to be most important is for each individual to realize that they themselves have inherent biases, whether we are aware of them or not, and to be conscious of the fact that our underlying physiologic state including levels of adrenaline and cortisol, frequently play into our decisions of how to act in any given situation. Once we have this awareness, it may allow us to ratchet down our emotional responses, act in less threatening fashion towards one another, and hopefully incur fewer of these tragedies.
Comment by Steve Hayes[i] 08/03/13 – 10:56 AM “Based on the above comment, things will get progressively worse as our current society unwinds. A perfect positive feedback system?!? ”
Comment by DG “How so?”
Because the negative stressors (to the amygdala)” in current society are increasing*, and are projected to continue to increase in the future.
_______________
*”It’s unkind to point out the obvious to those who don’t want to see it.” ~~ Ingo Swann
I worry most about the people who adamantly insist that racial biased don’t exist. I wonder if there is a direct correlation to actual biased in people who insist that it doesn’t exist. This would be an interesting study.
[quote]I worry most about the people who adamantly insist that racial biased don’t exist. I wonder if there is a direct correlation to actual biased in people who insist that it doesn’t exist. This would be an interesting study. [/quote]
As I worry about people who see bias at the drop of a pencil in anything and everything. It would be interesting to do some studies on the race baiters to see if they have a bias towards seeing everything in terms of race.
[quote]It would be interesting to do some studies on the race baiters to see if they have a bias towards seeing everything in terms of race.[/quote]
It would be interesting to do studies on those who identify themselves strongly with both ends of the spectrum to see if there is a correlation between political and social identification and physiologic expression of bias at the biochemical level. Such a study would make denial ( or name calling ) for either groups significantly more difficult.
in response to growth izzue, i’m not sure how many people see “everything” in terms of race. certainly somethings are due to race in this society, unless you believe that racism is completely gone (which i don’t believe you can sustain). so, the question i really have is (a) do you believe that it is possible for people to have biases they are unaware of and (b) do you believe that this could have occurred in the trayvon martin incident, why or why not?
GI: When you start calling anyone who suggests that bias may exist a race baiter it ends the opportunity to have constructive conversation, which I would sincerely like to have. Can I challenge you to a discussion about this issue in which no labels are used?
P.S., I think Davis Progressive’s questions are a good place to the conversation.
[quote]GI: When you start calling anyone who suggests that bias may exist a race baiter it ends the opportunity to have constructive conversation, which I would sincerely like to have. Can I challenge you to a discussion about this issue in which no labels are used? [/quote]
And Back at cha B. Nice, when you write posts like the one below it also ends constructive conversation:
[quote]I worry most about the people who adamantly insist that racial biased don’t exist. I wonder if there is a direct correlation to actual biased in people who insist that it doesn’t exist. This would be an interesting study. [/quote]
So don’t try to act all innocent.
GI: My question is a sincere one. I do wonder if people who insist subconscious biases don’t exist actually have more. I would be interested to learn if this is true. It seems like this is something that could be tested, and I would be interested in the results.
I do worry about the people who refuse to acknowledge that unconscious biases may exist, because I don’t believe you can overcome these biases without first acknowledging them.
I’m not sure how my comments preclude a constructive conversation? Again I challenge you can you disagree with me without labeling me or my ideas?
This is a bunch of hogwash.
A public defender lays in bed at night thinking deeply about social and political platforms that could result in changes to the law that would make his job easier.
“Your honor, of course we know that the defendant is the real victim of unconscious bias. Therefore I demand that the charges against him be dropped as he is the real victim here.”
Much more prevalent than any preponderance of evidence that hidden material racial bias exists in every conservative white person is the clear proof that those on the other side of a worldview are afflicted with the malady of dwindling common sense… or else they are brilliant malcontents driven to push their worldview by any means and at any cost.
There occurrence of materially-harming unconscious racial bias pales in comparison to the occurrence of materially-harming race baiting.
A black Psychologist named Robert Williams… after coining the term “Ebonics”, inventing a substitute IQ test for blacks called the BITCH (Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity), and claiming that the Black Personality could not be understood and should not be defined by European philosophy and values, should instead draw on African norms… came up with the theory of [b][I]”Racial Scripting”[/I][/b] that says white children acquire racist predispositions at a young age through the process of hearing a number of myths and stereotypes about blacks. He argued that this created a script that adults would follow to try and understand any race-based difference they perceived.
But if racial scripting can corrupt white children to have conscious and unconscious bias as adults, it stands to reason that EVERY CHILD can be corrupted similarly by continued repetition of stereotypes.
And the tide turned years ago.
Today there is not enough remaining child-corrupting racial scripting of negative black stereotypes to warrant the attention given by the media, politicians, racial-blinded civil-rights-social-justice activists. Today they in fact are just race baiters… just ginning up the conflict to remain important and validated in their own minds.
But what these people do is causing the real material harm to blacks. Because it is a form of reverse racial scripting; where stereotypes are injected into the minds of black children that racism still rages… and that whites are consciously and unconsciously biased… and that this is the source of any and all struggles that he or she might face growing up.
This is an example of where the good intentions of race-blinded social justice do-gooders are paving the road to hell for too many blacks. Black outcomes will only drastically improve when the average black American thinks of himself as Christian, Muslim, American, Californian, etc., etc., etc., …before he thinks of himself as black. He will do so when those that claim to be his savior stop brainwashing him to believe he is worthy of any special racial consideration.
[quote]where stereotypes are injected into the minds of black children that racism still rages[/quote]
Are you arguing that racism does not still rage?
[quote]this is the key right here: “In his 911 call, George Zimmerman said that that Trayvon “looks like he is up to no good” or that “he’s on drugs or something.” He also said that Trayvon, “looks black.” Zimmerman saw Trayvon as threatening even though Trayvon had not behaved in a threatening manner. “F…ing punks, these a*****es, they always get away,” Zimmerman said. Even though Trayvon was on his way home from the store, holding Skittles and an iced tea, he was not able to convince Zimmerman, at least through his appearance, that he was just walking down the street, minding his own business.”[/quote]
Yes, it is. Because it shows his own confirmation bias, which is another type of bias that is likely in play here.
Confirmation bias is the inherent tendency for people to favor information that supports their pre-existing beliefs, hypotheses, world views, etc.
FWIW, I don’t know what happened that night, I don’t know if Zimmerman is a racist or was prey to his own racial bias or anything.
But I can state pretty confidently confirmation bias is at work here, because I’m going to assume that his statement wasn’t a deliberate attempt to be misleading.
For example, Trayvon wasn’t, “just walking down the street.” He wasn’t on the street nor even the sidewalks…he was hugging the buildings…thus it could be that he, “looks like he is up to no good.” Pretending that isn’t the case, particularly in the context of numerous break-ins in the neighborhood seems to be confirmation bias at work.
Then the author mentions the statement that, “he’s on drugs or something.” as if that’s proof of racial bias. Yet according to what I’ve read, Trayvon had enough THC in his system to perhaps cause impairment. It’s confirmation bias for the author to not recognize/acknowledge this possibility.
Trayvon wasn’t simply, “minding his own business.” According to the 9-11 call, at one point he was approaching Zimmerman, then he turned and ran out of sight. We know he double back to meet up with Zimmerman…the infamous four minutes. If he had been minding his own business, he would have had time to get to his father’s friend’s home like his friend Rachel implored him to do. It’s confirmation bias for the author to ignore that.
The author asserts, “He also said that Trayvon, ‘looks black.'” When specifically ASKED by the operator, “OK, and this guy is he white, black, or hispanic?” Zimmerman replied, “He looks black.” In fact, when I’ve listened to the calls, to me it sounds like Zimmerman isn’t even SURE if Trayvon was black, that was just his best guess.
“holding Skittles and an iced tea,” attempts to highlight the fact that he was a minor…it makes him sound like a little kid, cloaking the fact that at 17 he occupied the body of someone quite nearly a man. This is a similar tactic used by the press, when they decided to show only images of Trayvon at 13, not at 17.
“F…ing punks, these a*****es, they always get away,” Yeah. There had been a rash of break-ins in the neighborhood, and there was a high level of frustration about that. I’ve felt a similar way when there was a whole slew of them here in Davis, some very close to where I live. Is being pissed that “punks” are getting away with robbery evidence of racial bias?
As to the hoodie, which is also somehow supposed to be evidence that Zimmerman was racist. Everybody wears hoodies…it’s not something reserved for minorities.
But an unknown person with a hoodie pulled up over their face is the modern day version of a cloaked stranger. There can be something unnerving about not being able to see someone’s face in that matter…it’s why the Grim Reaper is portrayed thusly.
Ginger, very interesting perspective on the situation. I appreciate you sharing you sharing it. It forced me to question some of the assumptions that I didn’t even know I was making. (I’m not being sarcastic, I really mean this)
[quote]”holding Skittles and an iced tea,” attempts to highlight the fact that he was a minor…it makes him sound like a little kid, cloaking the fact that at 17 he occupied the body of someone quite nearly a man. [/quote]
Plus the fact that skittles + Arizona watermelon punch (which Trayvon actually had) + cough syrup = “Purple Lean” or “Drank” which is a popular drink to get high on and Trayvon himself had posted on his Facebook page about this drink.
GI: What do you feel it necessary to paint Trayvon in the most negative light possible? Am I correct in assuming that you are against people doing the same to Zimmerman? Why does it matter wether he was drinking tea or punch? Why are you making assumptions about what he was going to do with this drink, and how is that even relevant to the situation?
did growth izzue just completely dodge my questions ?
GI
[quote]Plus the fact that skittles + Arizona watermelon punch (which Trayvon actually had) + cough syrup = “Purple Lean” or “Drank” which is a popular drink to get high on and Trayvon himself had posted on his Facebook page about this drink.[/quote]
Please explain how any of this posed a threat to Zimmerman and/or his neighborhood. Is your point that
Zimmerman new what he had purchased and what he intended to do with it ? Was Zimmerman biased against kids who like to make a drink from skittles, punch and cough syrup ? Where are you going with this ?
Let’s suppose it had been a joint ? Would that have deserved the death penalty ( which for him was the outcome)
How about a couple of grams of meth, or cocaine. Is death the appropriate penalty ?
I am just wondering how what he had purchased could in anyway be interpreted as justifying the outcome or for that matter having any relationship to the topic of this thread .
“I am just wondering how what he had purchased could in anyway be interpreted as justifying the outcome or for that matter having any relationship to the topic of this thread .”
to me it shows the link to implicit/ unconcious bias and how the individual person evaluates the facts of the case.
Ginger
I appreciate your perspective on how Martin may have seemed to Zimmerman. I think it is also important to consider how Zimmerman may have looked to Martin by following him. If one feels that the best option for Martin would essentially have been to run away and get to the house he was visiting, why would we not apply the same reasoning to Zimmerman who is older with more life experience, was specifically instructed to do so by an authority, and had the knowledge that he was lethally armed. Should we not also say that he should have chosen avoidance rather than following ? Surely if this is the best option for one, it would have been the best option for both. However, Florida law would seem to give people the latitude to “stand their ground”. Presumably at least Zimmerman would have been aware of this law, or should have been as a neighborhood patrol volunteer. To me it does not matter that this was not applied in the trial, I think it certainly speaks to the mind set of people who arm themselves and then go out on neighborhood watch.
[quote]did growth izzue just completely dodge my questions ?[/quote]
It appears so…
Speaking of the Stand Your Ground Law, how many of you liberals know this?
[quote]in 2004 Obama didn’t just vote for — he co–sponsored — S.B. 2386 that actually expanded Illinois’ ‘Stand Your Ground’ law.
Democrats — who controlled both houses in the legislature — had no problem with Obama’s law or the concept of self–defense. His bill was passed unanimously by the state senate and with only two votes against in the state house.[/quote]
Illinois has a Stand Your Ground law?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#US_States[/url]
I know Michael Reagan [i]said[/i] the thing you posted, but even with that sterling source you might want to double-check the story to see exactly what Obama co-sponsored and voted for.
Medwoman:
[quote]Ginger
I appreciate your perspective on how Martin may have seemed to Zimmerman. I think it is also important to consider how Zimmerman may have looked to Martin by following him. If one feels that the best option for Martin would essentially have been to run away and get to the house he was visiting, why would we not apply the same reasoning to Zimmerman who is older with more life experience, was specifically instructed to do so by an authority, and had the knowledge that he was lethally armed. Should we not also say that he should have chosen avoidance rather than following ? Surely if this is the best option for one, it would have been the best option for both. [/quote]
I have given much consideration as to how Zimmerman looked to Trayvon. In fact, Trayvon’s friend Rachel gives some insight into what Trayvon was thinking about Zimmerman.
I’ve looked at the stand your ground angle in a way very similar to you…but also from the flip side. Just like you say it is hypocritical for people to say Trayvon should have gone home but not applying that “not standing your ground” to Zimmerman, very often the same people who decry that Zimmerman followed Trayvon then defend Trayvon for turning around and going back to Zimmerman.
If you read and listen to the 9-11 call, a few things are very evident. First, regarding Zimmerman was not, “was specifically instructed to do so by an authority” about not following Trayvon. This is often repeated, but NOT what happened.
[quote][b]Dispatcher[/b]- Are you following him?
[b]Zimmerman[/b] – Yeah.
[b]Dispatcher[/b] – Ok. We don’t need you to do that.[/quote]
He wasn’t “specifically instructed” to not follow him. She said OK and followed that up with informing him it wasn’t necessary. That’s open to interpretation…certainly not a hard and fast instruction. Even if it were, nobody is under any obligation to adhere to a dispatcher’s suggestions. They aren’t an “authority.”
There is also an argument to be made about the fact that Zimmerman, on the 9-11 call, repeatedly asked to make sure the police were on their way, made a plan to meet with them, and asked for the police to call him when they arrived. If he wanted to go rogue and hunt down a black child, as I’ve often heard asserted (not here), that’s hardly a smart way to go about it. I suppose you could argue that by saying he’s just not a bright bulb.
Medwoman:
[quote] However, Florida law would seem to give people the latitude to “stand their ground”. Presumably at least Zimmerman would have been aware of this law, or should have been as a neighborhood patrol volunteer. To me it does not matter that this was not applied in the trial, I think it certainly speaks to the mind set of people who arm themselves and then go out on neighborhood watch. [/quote] What does it say about the mindset of people who arm themselves and join neighborhood watches? Because I personally am not aware of a rash of neighborhood watch murders…the only other example I even know of was linked here in another thread…it had many similarities to this case, with a teenager shot by an adult. The adult was acquitted in that instance as well.
Again…I don’t know what happened that evening. I’ve often thought that it is a shame Trayvon didn’t also call 9-11 when he felt threatened by being followed by Zimmerman. That could have created a very different ending to the night.
“He wasn’t “specifically instructed” to not follow him. “
he was specifically told that they did not need him to follow. i think those defending zimmerman have made too much of the distinction between telling him he didn’t need to follow and telling him not to follow. to me, if the police dispatcher said i don’t need to follow, i don’t follow
The Illinois bill SB2386 –
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2386&GAID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=8536&SessionID=3
I’m not good at lawyer-speak, but from what I can tell the deal is that it protects a person from liability if they harm someone while acting in self-defense. Or something. I can’t tell. 🙂
Sorry…link: [url]http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2386&GAID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=8536&SessionID=3[/url]
[i]Are you arguing that racism does not still rage?[/i]
I don’t need to argue that point. If you are talking about white on black racism, then the answer is easily no. White rage about racism died after the civil rights act. What we have seen since then is black rage.
wow, you really are in denial, frankly.
[quote]He wasn’t “specifically instructed” to not follow him. ”
he was specifically told that they did not need him to follow. i think those defending zimmerman have made too much of the distinction between telling him he didn’t need to follow and telling him not to follow. to me, if the police dispatcher said i don’t need to follow, i don’t follow.[/quote] To be clear, I’m not defending Zimmerman. Up until relatively recently, I thought he was told to NOT follow Trayvon, because that’s what I’d always heard. I was surprised not long ago when I read the transcript myself (during the trial, I think) and saw what actually transpired. So if lots of people are making this distinction, I haven’t heard them. I thought I had quite an original insight. 🙂
Let’s look at it this way:
“Are you going to eat the last piece of cake, son?”
“Yes, Mom.”
“Ok. I don’t need you to.”
Is the kid going to take that as a directive to NOT eat the cake? Something they already were going to do, after being asked in such a way that makes it apparent it’s a possibility, and had their, “Yes” followed up with “OK” but you don’t NEED to?
So, DP…maybe YOU wouldn’t follow, but the fact that Zimmerman did isn’t indicative, in my opinion, of any guilt on his part. The fact that those who want to believe that Zimmerman was a predator make this interaction to be an example of how he went rogue and violated a police order makes me want to set the record straight, that’s all.
my view is that zimmerman was not a predator, he was overzealous (and i don’t agree with a second degree murder charge). this follows along with that view. fwiw.
PS- When I read the transcript, I thought the dispatcher’s “you don’t need to” sound like a CYA thing they always say in case the person gets hurt. Like, you’re doing this because you want to, not because we asked you to.
she didn’t say you don’t need to, she said, “we don’t need you to do that.” that’s a dispatcher telling him not to do something. regardless, he made the decision to proceed when he was told by the police dispatcher he didn’t need to do it and someone died because of it.
[i]wow, you really are in denial, frankly. [/i]
DP, no not denial. Just keeping it real. I don’t deny real. I also don’t buy what you are selling.
i’m not sure what you think i’m selling. i asked a couple of simple questions that were completely ignored. i think the reaction by the right to obama defies logic that is not compounded by race – and a lot of the rhetoric taps directly into race and ethnicity as part of the animus. so the idea that there isn’t white rage in sizable seems ludicrous to me.
[quote]I’m not good at lawyer-speak, but from what I can tell the deal is that it protects a person from liability if they harm someone while acting in self-defense. Or something. I can’t tell. :-)[/quote]
Illinois doesn’t have a Stand Your Ground law. Michael Reagan and Growth Izzue (and apparently dozens of other conservative blogs) are incorrect.
Frankly what do you think of this?
[url]http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/04/05/georgia-students-fight-segregated-proms/[/url]
[quote]she didn’t say you don’t need to, she said, “we don’t need you to do that.” that’s a dispatcher telling him not to do something.[/quote] Actually, she said, “Okay. We don’t need you to do that.” I don’t see what difference “do that” makes in this case. And it’s not a dispatcher telling him not to do something, IMO, it’s a dispatcher telling him what they need. Need and want are two very different things.
“We don’t WANT you to do that,” would have been a different story. Still, Zimmerman would have been under no legal obligation to comply. I think he should have, but that’s not the issue.
People “defending” Zimmerman may make too big of a deal about this distinction, but when it’s largely portrayed that Zimmerman, ‘was specifically instructed to do so by an authority,”…and often then used as an example of how he was rogue and just itching to kill a black kid, it’s important to stick to the objective facts.
Some may believe “Ok. We don’t need you to do that.” is a direct order to stand down. I disagree and think it is certainly open to interpretation. I’ll again offer my scenario:
“Are you going to eat the last piece of cake, son?”
“Yes, Mom.”
“Ok. I don’t need you to do that.”
Ginger,
Wow, glad you did your posts; particularly the 2:18 pm post; saved me the trouble in refuting some misleading statements about the case by Adachi; which were initially promoted in the mainstream press, then shown to be contradicted by the facts, but which nonetheless continue to be promulgated. Agree with you about the confirmation bias. I’d like to add that the police knew Zimmerman personally very well; as he had been neighborhood watch for some time with numerous calls and contacts with the police, and had did other cooperative work with the police; so naturally they would be at ease with Zimmerman when they came on scene; he was not a stranger to them.
Re: “PS- When I read the transcript, I thought the dispatcher’s “you don’t need to” sound like a CYA thing they always say in case the person gets hurt. Like, you’re doing this because you want to, not because we asked you to.”
Yes, I’m pretty certain that’s the case; they indeed need to say something like that for CYA liability purposes; the police dept. absolved themselves of responsibility by that statement; leaving Zimmerman to follow his own judgement and be responsible for his own actions (yes, that is still possible in USA; our government caretakers do not direct all our actions yet).
Despite my previous recent post; I do find the reported research interesting; and it appears to be not without merit.
However, would be even more interesting to include the responses of blacks in such tests; and how they score in unconscious bias. By including results for all races; there is less tendency to scapegoat any one particular race; a dispassionate analysis of levels of unconscious bias that may be present among all races would bring the discussion to a higher level; so that we can understand aspects of human cognition and behavior that are common to all races. Otherwise its just tit-for-tat among the different racial/ethnic groups, which is nice if you want to promulgate inter-racial/ethnic squabbling, perhaps not so effective if you want to get to the root of the problem, which is a human problem and not specific to any particular race.
Don Shore:
[quote]Illinois doesn’t have a Stand Your Ground law. Michael Reagan and Growth Izzue (and apparently dozens of other conservative blogs) are incorrect.
Illinois gun laws:
Open carry is not permissible in Illinois, making it illegal to carry weapons in any form or fashion in Illinois outside one’s home or business except for the purposes of hunting, range shooting or similar activities.[/quote]
Stand your ground laws aren’t about the legality to carry weapons outside of one’s home or business. While the definition of the laws vary from state to state, they are generally understood to mean you don’t have the duty to retreat when attacked/invaded.
Illinois is a castle doctrine state…there is no duty to retreat if someone invades your home/business and you have the right to use deadly force. The bill Senator Obama co-sponsored added to that:
[quote]Provides that in no case shall any act involving the justified use of force in defense of one’s self or another person or in defense of one’s dwelling or other property give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting as an aggressor, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force.[/quote]
[quote]
Does Illinois Have a “Stand Your Ground” Law?
Last updated: April 2012
The following question was submitted to John Roska, an attorney/writer whose weekly newspaper column, “Q&A: The Law,” runs in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Illinois Edition) and the Champaign News Gazette.
Question:
Does Illinois have a “stand your ground” law, like the one in Florida?
Answer:
Yes. Article 7 of the Illinois Criminal Code includes a law that is similar to Florida. It’s a “self-defense” that can defeat both criminal and civil liability.
The three main parts of the Illinois law apply to the use of force: “in defense of person,” “in defense of dwelling,” and “in defense of other property.”
[/quote]
[url]http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=8357[/url]
jimt
Thanks for the kind words!
[quote]Despite my previous recent post; I do find the reported research interesting; and it appears to be not without merit.
However, would be even more interesting to include the responses of blacks in such tests; and how they score in unconscious bias.[/quote] I noticed the absence of his sharing the results of African Americans, too. I wonder if they weren’t included…or if mentioning their results weren’t convenient?
To that end, I decided to do some investigating…the black/white/purple study that he cited? Where white people experience NO EMPATHY FOR A BLACK HAND, but does for a purple hand? I found the study: Alessio Avenanti, Angela Sirigu, & Salvatore M. Aglioti, Racial Bias Reduces Empathic Sensorimotor Resonance with Other-Race Pain, 20 CURRENT BIOLOGY 1018 (2010).
Guess what? I’ll let Alessio tell you himself:
[quote]ABSTRACT Although social psychology studies suggest that racism often manifests itself as a lack of empathy, i.e., the ability to share and comprehend others’ feelings and intentions, evidence for differential empathic reactivity to the pain of same- or different-race individuals is meager. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation, we explored sensorimotor empathic brain responses in black and white individuals who exhibited implicit but not explicit ingroup preference and race-specific autonomic reactivity. We found that observing the pain of ingroup models inhibited the onlookers’ corticospinal system as if they were feeling the pain. Both black and white individuals exhibited empathic reactivity also when viewing the pain of stranger, very unfamiliar, violet-hand models. By contrast, no vicarious mapping of the pain of individuals culturally marked as outgroup members on the basis of their skin color was found. Importantly, group-specific lack of empathic reactivity was higher in the onlookers who exhibited stronger implicit racial bias. These results indicate that human beings react empathically to the pain of stranger individuals. However, racial bias and stereotypes may change this reactivity into a group-specific lack of sensorimotor resonance.[/quote]
In other words, the black study participants had the same reactions as the white participants. Why didn’t Adachi include this fact?
Link to study: [url]http://www.researchgate.net/publication/44663029_Racial_bias_reduces_empathic_sensorimotor_resonance_with_other-race_pain[/url]
GI and Ginger: nice effort, both of you. But Illinois does not have a Stand Your Ground law. Castle Doctrine is different. If conservatives are going to continue their ongoing ‘liberals are hypocrites’ refrain about things like this, then they should be accurate.
Illinois has never passed such a law, which is a very specific thing. See how it is capitalized? It isn’t a Castle Doctrine law. They aren’t the same. Then-Senator Obama didn’t co-sponsor an enhancement of a Stand Your Ground law. So the statement by Michael Reagan, quoted by Growth Izzue, is factually incorrect. Moreover, Mr. Zimmerman would have been violating Illinois law if he had been driving around with a gun, and would probably not have had the stupidity or courage (take your pick) to be doing what he did in Florida. The situation would not have occurred, were he a law-abiding Illinois citizen, because he could not have put himself in the jeopardy in the first place.
Don: [quote] Then-Senator Obama didn’t co-sponsor an enhancement of a Stand Your Ground law. [/quote]
I didn’t say that. I said:
[quote]Illinois is a castle doctrine state….there is no duty to retreat if someone invades your home/business and you have the right to use deadly force. The bill Senator Obama co-sponsored added to that:
“Provides that in no case shall any act involving the justified use of force in defense of one’s self or another person or in defense of one’s dwelling or other property give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting as an aggressor, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force.”[/quote]
I didn’t use capitalization because, in my non-lawyer ignorance, I thought it was shorthand for a no duty to retreat type law. My bad.
I also never said it was hypocritical. I was just putting the facts out there. How about you address the law itself (it’s quoted right there), instead of mocking my use of upper or lower case letters?
Don: [quote]Illinois doesn’t have a Stand Your Ground law. Michael Reagan and Growth Izzue (and apparently dozens of other conservative blogs) are incorrect.
Illinois gun laws:
Open carry is not permissible in Illinois, making it illegal to carry weapons in any form or fashion in Illinois outside one’s home or business except for the purposes of hunting, range shooting or similar activities.[/quote]
I still can’t figure out why you brought up open carry when attempting to explain how Illinois doesn’t have SYG laws.
Why are you trying to defend Growth Izzue’s incorrect assertion?
My point about open carry is to point out the added absurdity of this factually-challenged assertion that is making the rounds of conservative blogs and talk shows.
[quote]How about you address the law itself (it’s quoted right there), instead of mocking my use of upper or lower case letters? [/quote]
The law itself is not a Stand Your Ground law. They said it was. You are defending them saying it was. Or you’re making some other point, for purposes that aren’t clear to me.
Growth Izzue (and Michael Reagan) are incorrect.
I am not defending anyone. I’m adding my own two cents to the discussion.
In fact, as I wrote it, if anything my attempt was to illustrate that Illinois is NOT a SYG state, that it was a castle doctrine state (admittedly I misunderstood that castle doctrine isn’t the same as no duty to retreat…but I’ve stated I’m no lawyer). Geesh.
Honestly, take me at my word. Don’t pile assumptions onto me based upon what you think I am, what category you’ve decided I belong to.
BTW, the law I quoted/linked above is the actual bill Obama cosponsored…so I found it interesting in its own right, separate from any other law on the books (or not) in Illinois.
[i]…Frankly what do you think of this?
http://m.washingtonpost.com/bl…ted-proms/ [/i]
B. Nice – how long did you have to search on Google to find some proof that racism still exists in the Deep South?
You also didn’t read up on the situation to learn that the practice had been largely supported by the white and black parents.
But I think you unintentionally stepped into it making my point. You see, the kids fixed the problem:
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316303/Georgia-integrated-prom-Wilcox-County-High-School-students-demand-end-segregation.html[/url]
Which is my point.
It is the race-baiting adults that keep ginning up fake racism. The kids have moved on. Just stop the racial scripting and the kids won’t consider race in their ongoing human relationships.
Frankly, adults suck when it comes to the topic of racism. If we make it illegal for any person over 25 years of age to utter or write a single thought on the topic of racism, it would be non-existant.
[quote]B. Nice – how long did you have to search on Google to find some proof that racism still exists in the Deep South? [/quote]
Not long I was familiar with the story.
[quote]It is the race-baiting adults that keep ginning up fake racism.[/quote]
How is that fact that school districts refuse to host proms because they would have to be integrated race-baiting, instead of actual racism or “fake” racism.
[quote]But I think you unintentionally stepped into it making my point. You see, the kids fixed the problem: [/quote]
The kids had to fundraise and throw their own prom because their school district (one of many with similar practices) refuses to host integrated proms. My point is that racism still exists in this country, I think this a pretty clear example.
Ginger
[quote]Let’s look at it this way:
“Are you going to eat the last piece of cake, son?”
“Yes, Mom.”
“Ok. I don’t need you to.”
[/quote]
Unfortunately your analogy to the dispatcher’s conversation with Zimmerman is imprecise. So let’s look at it another way using the basis of your analogy.
“Mom, I know there are other ways to dispose of that last piece of cake, but I was thinking of eating it”
“Ok, I don’t need you to .”
So does this imply that she wants him to do so. Not to my interpretation. Has she forbidden it ? Not explicitly,
but I think that the implication is clear that she has other thoughts about how that cake could best be dealt with. Also, it would appear that Mr. Zimmerman had a piece of knowledge that he has not shared with the dispatcher. Namely that he is carrying a weapon capable of lethal force. Would that have made a difference in the dispatcher’s advice ? Well, unfortunately for Trayvon Martin, we will never know.
I do not believe that Mr. Zimmerman went out “hunting black kids” deliberately. But I do believe that he chose a lethal weapon rather than a device capable of incapacitation such as pepper spray, and that he then chose to put himself in a position where there was some danger. His story of following because he saw suspicious behavior falls apart if you do not believe that he saw Trayvon Martin as a thug or criminal. So once he did start following, he had to have had the awareness that he was capable of causing death if things went wrong. This to me is the crux of the issue. This was the horrendous judgement of an adult who was clearly old enough to know better and yet somehow saw himself as the “good guy” and had decided without any direct knowledge, that Trayvon Martin was “the bad guy”. A very dangerous and irresponsible point of view in my eyes.
Well put Medwoman. In this case, I think that Zimmerman is guilty of being overzealous (as DP put it) rather than malicious. And based on that, her telling him that they did not need him to pursue and him doing so anyway, falls into that pattern. The next question is whether his choice was due to assumptions based on skin color or behavior by Martin.
Frankly: How do you account for the use of a racially or ethnically charged words to describe Obama?
David – once again, PLEASE stop the race-baiting. PLEASE help us heal.
How is this article (not written by me) race baiting?
[quote]David – once again, PLEASE stop the race-baiting. PLEASE help us heal. [/quote]
Denying the existence of something does not help it heal, it helps it fester.
medwoman:
[quote]Ginger
Let’s look at it this way:
“Are you going to eat the last piece of cake, son?”
“Yes, Mom.”
“Ok. I don’t need you to.”
Unfortunately your analogy to the dispatcher’s conversation with Zimmerman is imprecise. So let’s look at it another way using the basis of your analogy.
“Mom, I know there are other ways to dispose of that last piece of cake, but I was thinking of eating it”
“Ok, I don’t need you to .” [/quote]
Except my verbiage is exactly how it appears on the transcript of the 9-11 call, I intentionally structured it to mirror the facts. The actual transcript:
[quote]
[b]Dispatcher[/b]- [i]Are you following him?[/i]
[b]Zimmerman[/b]- [i]Yeah.[/i]
[b]Dispatcher[/b]-[i] Ok, we don’t need you to do that.[/i][/quote]
Your example would be more precise than mine only if the real interaction between Zimmerman and the dispatcher when thusly:
[quote][b]Zimmerman[/b]- I know there are other ways to handle this situation, but I was thinking of following Trayvon.
[b]Dispatcher[/b]- “Ok, I don’t need you to.”[/quote]
Regardless, you stated:
[quote]So does this imply that she wants him to do so. Not to my interpretation. Has she forbidden it ? Not explicitly,[/quote]
Which is ALL I’ve been saying. Unlike what most people believe and usually perpetuated in the media, he wasn’t acting against direct police orders.
medwoman
[quote]but I think that the implication is clear that she has other thoughts about how that cake could best be dealt with.[/quote] Certainly possible. But in that type of adrenaline-filled situation, are we to expect Zimmerman to be tuned into the dispatcher’s subtle implications? Even in the best of situations, he might not be one to pick up on such subtexts.
Remember the first thing she said was, “OK.” That was the primary message. If she emphatically and categorically didn’t want Zimmerman to follow Trayvon, she could have made that crystal clear by simply saying, [b]”NO!”[/b]
I don’t understand the insistence by some that racism no longer exist, when there are clear examples of it. (i.e. school district refusing to host integrated proms). “Race-baiting” and racism can and do co-exist. Not every example of racism is “race-baitng” and vice versa, why insist otherwise?
[i]Frankly: How do you account for the use of a racially or ethnically charged words to describe Obama?[/i]
Simple – he is the President and we have amped up identity politics. The media and Democrats already exploit half of his race to protect him from challenge. People are labeled as racist only for disagreeing with his positions and policies. I think this has led to a new perspective of racial bias where race is not so much a personal issue, but a political one. I know a few people that have a perspective that we should work harder to defeat any future Democrat belonging to one of the politically-correct victims’ groups because the media will prevent him/her from being held fully accountable for his/her actions.
You do remember media comments like “Bush hates black people”, don’t you?
Ginger
[quote]But in that type of adrenaline-filled situation, are we to expect Zimmerman to be tuned into the dispatcher’s subtle implications? Even in the best of situations, he might not be one to pick up on such subtexts. [/quote]
I think that this is an excellent point. I also think that we probably interpret that point differently. It is exactly because this is an adrenaline charged situation that more caution should be exercised. Only Zimmerman knew that he was armed with a lethal weapon ( unless of course there is information that I don’t have that would prove that the dispatcher also knew). So, to my thinking, it becomes incumbent upon Zimmerman to either clearly communicate that he has a weapon and enquire what they specifically want him to do, or to come to the conclusion that because the situation is adrenaline filled, the best thing for him to do is just await the arrival of the police so as to avoid mistakenly causing harm.
As a more general point, this is also part of my objection overall to concealed carry provisions. They create an extremely unequal playing field in which one party is aware that they have the ability to kill, and yet do not choose to de escalate the situation, whereas the unarmed party has no idea what they may be up against.
The thought of just running away then becomes possibly not the best idea. What if the person with the gun perceives “running away” as an admission of guilt and decides to shoot. I am unaware of anyone’s ability to out run a bullet.
[quote]But in that type of adrenaline-filled situation, are we to expect Zimmerman to be tuned into the dispatcher’s subtle implications? Even in the best of situations, he might not be one to pick up on such subtexts. [/quote]
The sad part to me is that he created this adrenaline-filled situation (in which he needed to pick up on subtexts) which ended in the death of an innocent kid, and he is not held at all legally responsible for this choice.
DG:[quote] How is this article (not written by me) race baiting? I can’t help us to heal if every time the issue of race comes up, it’s met with denial and calls of race baiting. You have to deal with the problem head on.[/quote]
I’ve not said this article is race-baiting, but I will say that it doesn’t deal with the problem of race head-on. At least not without a heavy dose of confirmation bias, which needs to be acknowledged if we’re going to have those uncomfortable discussions Holder claims the nation needs.
I’ll bring this up again:
Adachi; [quote]In one study, people were shown three videos of three different hands being poked with a hypodermic needle. One hand was white, another was black and the third was painted purple. People’s level of sensory motor contagion or pain empathy was measured. As Caucasian people saw the white hand being poked, they felt a high level of pain empathy. As they watched the purple hand being poked they felt a smaller amount of empathy. But as they watched the black hand being poked, they felt no pain empathy.[/quote] Evidence of racial bias in Caucasians? Yes. But Adachi neglects to mention that black participants had the same findings. WHY? Perhaps it simply didn’t fit his narrative. Perhaps he didn’t actually read the study and was just repeating what he’d heard (I found it fairly easily by googling). Perhaps he wants to fan the flames of racial animosity. Perhaps in his world view racism is a one-way street, so there’s no reason to tell the full story.
I don’t know, I can’t see into his heart and mind to decipher why he portrayed the study that way. Adachi did go on after the above quote regarding the study to extrapolate from the study:
[quote]It is possible that the police literally looked at Trayvon as he bled and felt nothing. At the same time it is possible that they looked at Zimmerman and felt empathy for his tenuous legal situation.[/quote] But, see…if he had explained the whole story about the study, then he could have also said, “It is quite possible that Trayvon was literally fearful of Zimmerman because of his “otherness,” his whiteness, etc.” His phone call to his friend Rachel would bolster that notion. It’s possible that racial bias was at play for both of these individuals.
And then we could have a discussion, an honest open discussion, about race. And maybe something productive could come of it.
Adachi: [quote]With whom did the jury, which did not include any African Americans, empathize? George Zimmerman or Trayvon? Did they have the same reaction that Zimmerman did to a young man in a hoodie in a place he supposedly did not belong? What about the prosecutors who prosecuted the case? Race was not mentioned in that courtroom, and I assume it was a deliberate choice by the prosecution team, which did not include any African American prosecutors. [/quote] See what we’re getting here is more division, not less. He’s stating that white people just can’t overcome that racial bias. We just aren’t going to be able to empathize with African Americans. Maybe we should make sure that when the defendant is black, the jury is black. So when the defendant is white, the jury must be white. Same goes for Hispanics, Asians, etc. Right?
I’d have a lot more respect for this article if he’d not indulged his own biases and included the full story on that study, if he’d given more examples from Project Implicit that showed racial (and other, like weight and education level) biases are universal. And I’ve already detailed the huge amount of confirmation bias it took to write this paragraph:
[quote]In his 911 call, George Zimmerman said that that Trayvon “looks like he is up to no good” or that “he’s on drugs or something.” He also said that Trayvon, “looks black.” Zimmerman saw Trayvon as threatening even though Trayvon had not behaved in a threatening manner. “F…ing punks, these assholes, they always get away,” Zimmerman said. Even though Trayvon was on his way home from the store, holding Skittles and an iced tea, he was not able to convince Zimmerman, at least through his appearance, that he was just walking down the street, minding his own business.
[/quote]
And I understand…in our country all of this is seen through the lens of our history. That’s important and part of the healing.
However, for all too many they don’t want to see any progress…successes in racial issues can’t be celebrated. Instead we’re told that white people are so inherently racist that we don’t know it and we can’t overcome it.
“Evidence of racial bias in Caucasians? Yes. But Adachi neglects to mention that black participants had the same findings. WHY? Perhaps it simply didn’t fit his narrative.”
Or perhaps it wasn’t relevant to the point he was trying to make recording unconcious bias. To me the fact that blacks had similar views shows just how powerful the subconscious filters are here. We want to turn this into racism, but this is actually a different phenomena, but just as powerful in determining how we respond to stimuli.
[quote] To me the fact that blacks had similar views shows just how powerful the subconscious filters are here. [/quote] Me, too. All the more odd he didn’t include it.
[quote] We want to turn this into racism, but this is actually a different phenomena, [/quote] The fact that he only highlighted the racial bias on whites is what makes it smack of racism. Rather than being a part of the universal human condition, his article makes it sound like racial bias something only whites experience to any significant degree.
[quote]Frankly: How do you account for the use of a racially or ethnically charged words to describe Obama?
Simple – he is the President and we have amped up identity politics. The media and Democrats already exploit half of his race to protect him from challenge. People are labeled as racist only for disagreeing with his positions and policies. I think this has led to a new perspective of racial bias where race is not so much a personal issue, but a political one. I know a few people that have a perspective that we should work harder to defeat any future Democrat belonging to one of the politically-correct victims’ groups because the media will prevent him/her from being held fully accountable for his/her actions.[/quote]
You’re argument is that there is no white rage here. I countered that the racially charged animus against Obama suggests otherwise. You’ve side-stepped that.
“You do remember media comments like “Bush hates black people”, don’t you?”
What does that have to do with my point to you?
David – I had typed something and the page changed to some advertising and I lost what I had typed. This has happened to me several times over the last several months.
I appreciate the need for the Vanguard to generate advertising revenue, but your developers need to put in some code that prevents the page from redirecting when where is content typed. Either that or have them open a new page for advertising redirects.
I don’t have time to re-think what I wrote. And each time this happens I get pissed and click off the Vanguard for a few days.
Frankly: has nothing to do with our site. It might have something to do with the SacConnect software and it may just be a defect of aging software. We’re hoping to put enough money together by the year for a new site, but we have had several critical setbacks this year that has prevented that from happening.
David it is the Hathaway Tech link right below the content box and right below the [Add Comment] and [Preview] buttons. Apparently I have accidentally clicked on it.
It is simple… just have them change the HTML tag to open a new window instead of redirecting the existing page.
What I had typed in response to B. Nice’s question “I don’t understand the insistence by some that racism no longer exist”
I have never written that. I have written that I believe we have progressed so far in civil rights, and that the remaining real white-on-black racism that exists is too little, by far, to warrant the media and political attention given it.
The current problem is preventing us from proceeding to the next version of racial civil rights. That problem is the reverse racial scripting of enflaming black anger that white-on-black racism is still a huge problem, an impediment to their success, and reason for them to belong in a victims’ group.
I think you can correlate the over and under-representation of blacks in a number of economic and social categories be measuring the relative level of anger in their group. That anger is high. Anger creates internal noise that impacts focus and decision-making. That anger is fomented and exploited by race-baiters.
Said another way, it is no longer the old white-on-black racism that is responsible for negative black over and under-representation. We have moved on from that. What we have now are race-baiters locking the black community in a sort of virtual plantation of the soft bigotry of low expectations combined with enflamed anger.
Note the anger of black demonstrations and interviews of black protestors. It exceeds that of any other demographic in the US. It more closely matches the patterns of what we see in Islamic countries…. the countries where there are a great number of Muslim leaders continuing to enflame anger over Israel and the West as the source of their misery.
The day we see the black community reject these old false leaders and embrace a new model that injects them with truth, responsibility, community and a new common definition of human self-worth that transcends the “everything is about race” media and political template… the day we see the anger melt away… this will be the day that we can rejoice that the black community is finally healing.
Ginger
[quote]He’s stating that white people just can’t overcome that racial bias.[/quote]
Actually, that is not what he said, that is what you inferred. By your own quote, he asked a number of questions about whether or not this might be the case. In the last sentence you quote, the only assertion, is marked by his comment that he was making an assumption, clearly not saying that he was claiming this was true. You then concluded that he was making this as a definitive statement.
[quote]He’s stating that white people just can’t overcome that racial bias.[/quote]
Who do you believe is saying that ? Just because Adachi did not state that all people have racial biases certainly does not mean that he is unaware of that. Do you include all the possible permutations of a concept in every article or post that you write ? I know that I do not. This case was specifically about the death of a black male at the hands of an individual of a different ethnic background in the historical context of a country in which blacks and black males in particular have been disadvantaged. Why would you think that it would not be reasonable to question whether the all white jury ( namely those having the power in the situation ) might have been biased while not specifically addressing the possible biases of the deceased ?
[quote]if he had explained the whole story about the study, then he could have also said, “It is quite possible that Trayvon was literally fearful of Zimmerman because of his “otherness,” his whiteness, etc.” His phone call to his friend Rachel would bolster that notion. It’s possible that racial bias was at play for both of these individuals.
And then we could have a discussion, an honest open discussion, about race. And maybe something productive could come of it.
[/quote]
I fail to see how omission of this particular point that you feel should have been included in any way keeps us from having an open honest discussion about race. What you have done is to portray Adachi’s motives in a negative light. I would propose that unless you have had a conversation with him, or heard an interview on his motivations for presentation as he did, you have no idea of his rationale and have been critical simply because you do not agree with his presentation of ideas. That is an entirely different thing from speculating on what his motives might have been. You are clearly aware of this distinction since you pointed it out by asking another poster to respond directly to the points you are making, and not to lump you in with others based on an arbitrary classification they may have placed you in.
Frankly: [quote] If you are talking about white on black racism, then the answer is easily no.[/quote]
[quote]B. Nice: “I don’t understand the insistence by some that racism no longer exist” [/quote]
Frankly: [quote]I have never written that. [/quote]
B. Nice, Frankly was talking about black rage and white rage about racism. Not the same thing as saying white on black racism doesn’t exist.
[quote]B. Nice, Frankly was talking about black rage and white rage about racism. Not the same thing as saying white on black racism doesn’t exist.[/quote]
Oh I must have misunderstood when he said “if your talking about white on black racism”.
Frankly: [quote]Note the anger of black demonstrations and interviews of black protestors. It exceeds that of any other demographic in the US.[/quote]
You really believe this? You think black demonstrators are angrier then other demonstrators? Have you seen and heard anti-abortion protestors? Pro-choice protestors? Anti-gay marriage protestors? Anti-war protestors?
Oh B. Nice you are either getting quite twisted in your understanding, or else you are quite deviant in your assertions.
You asked if I thought white racism against blacked raged. I wrote “no”. Nowhere did I write that I think there is no white racism against blacks.
[i]You really believe this? You think black demonstrators are angrier then other demonstrators? Have you seen and heard anti-abortion protestors? Pro-choice protestors? Anti-gay marriage protestors? Anti-war protestors?[/I]
You are getting twisted again. I said than any other demographic. You can cherry pick some individual social issues and find some angry people. But there is a lot of rage on display from the black community and this is unique. And it is interesting to me that we demonstrate tolerance for it. If the Hispanic community marched with a similar tone and message, we would have much less tolerance for it. However, most Hispanic cause marches are relatively peaceful.
Just listen to Al Sharpton “preach”. How about Luis Farrakhan?
Anger, anger, anger.
When did the left start supporting groups that display so much anger in their platform?
I was unaware that the “black community” was so monolithic in its attributes. I’m guessing it is just as diverse as the communities of those protesting abortion, gay marriage, and war. I don’t think Al Sharpton represents a majority or even a large minority viewpoint in the “black community.” I’m almost certain Louis Farrakhan doesn’t represent much more than a very small cohort within the “black community.” And I don’t think Kanye West reflected the views of very many people when he was talking about George W. Bush.
Frankly my response to you would be so similar to the one Don made, I won’t bother rewording it.
“Just listen to Al Sharpton “preach”. How about Luis Farrakhan? Anger, anger, anger. When did the left start supporting groups that display so much anger in their platform?”
I will add: Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck
[quote]I will add: Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck [/quote]
B. Nice, are you a regular listener to these conservative hosts or are you just spouting out what you’ve been told or have read from liberal media outlets?
Medwoman:
First, enjoying this discussion!
Second:
[quote]Ginger
He’s stating that white people just can’t overcome that racial bias.
medwoman: Actually, that is not what he said, that is what you inferred.[/quote]
You’re right, he did state it’s possible to overcome racial bias:
Adachi: [quote]Despite its physiological roots, social scientists are striving to develop ways people can override unconscious bias more consistently. They have found that, among other things, exposure to diversity in social environments such as workplaces and schools can help lower unconscious bias. So the good news is that there is a cure!
So implicit bias can be overridden but it takes a conscious effort. It’s not just a matter of awareness. You can’t eliminate bias by merely saying, “I’m going to try harder not to be biased.’=” “We can override on some occasions, on many occasions, but eventually our brain defaults to our implicit associations. So this is something of which we have to be constantly mindful.[/quote]
To drill down, social scientists are working on this (thus it’s a WIP). And the average (white) person who doesn’t have “exposure to diversity in social situations” won’t achieve that “cure.”
And even if those who want to change but don’t have access to such diversity, he says that just trying harder isn’t sufficient…our brains default to racial bias. So we have to be “constantly mindful.” So let’s never EVER stop thinking about race…let’s never just relate to people as people, let’s make sure we know their category and keep that constantly in mind.
Which to me means not being real with our fellow human beings who don’t look just like us, but then I’m no social scientist, right?
[quote]Do you include all the possible permutations of a concept in every article or post that you write ? [/quote] Of course not. I never hinted that would be the case because the notion is absurd.
The title of this article is, “The Role of Implicit Bias and How It Impacts Cases Like Trayvon Martin” NOT, “The Role of Implicit Bias in the [b]White[/b] Population and How It Impacts Cases Like Trayvon Martin.” Yet he ONLY [i]discusses[/i] the racial bias of white people (it’s clear from just the abstracts that the studies he quoted show it’s not exclusive to whites). By not including this he’s telling a story different than the studies he cites. That’s not a case of INCLUDING ALL POSSIBLE permutations, that’s deciding to REMOVE RELEVANT Ainformation.
Medwoman: [quote] Just because Adachi did not state that all people have racial biases certainly does not mean that he is unaware of that[…]This case was specifically about the death of a black male at the hands of an individual of a different ethnic background in the historical context of a country in which blacks and black males in particular have been disadvantaged.[/quote] Then why did he include the study about the white, black, and purple hands? It took place in Italy.
medwomanL [quote]What you have done is to portray Adachi’s motives in a negative light. I would propose that unless you have had a conversation with him, or heard an interview on his motivations for presentation as he did, you have no idea of his rationale and have been critical simply because you do not agree with his presentation of ideas. That is an entirely different thing from speculating on what his motives might have been. You are clearly aware of this distinction since you pointed it out by asking another poster to respond directly to the points you are making, and not to lump you in with others based on an arbitrary classification they may have placed you in.[/quote]
Perhaps you missed when I said this:
[quote]Evidence of racial bias in Caucasians? Yes. But Adachi neglects to mention that black participants had the same findings. WHY? Perhaps it simply didn’t fit his narrative. Perhaps he didn’t actually read the study and was just repeating what he’d heard (I found it fairly easily by googling). Perhaps he wants to fan the flames of racial animosity. Perhaps in his world view racism is a one-way street, so there’s no reason to tell the full story.
I don’t know, I can’t see into his heart and mind to decipher why he portrayed the study that way.[/quote]
[quote]DS: I was unaware that the “black community” was so monolithic in its attributes. I’m guessing it is just as diverse as the communities of those protesting abortion, gay marriage, and war. I don’t think Al Sharpton represents a majority or even a large minority viewpoint in the “black community.” I’m almost certain Louis Farrakhan doesn’t represent much more than a very small cohort within the “black community.” And I don’t think Kanye West reflected the views of very many people when he was talking about George W. Bush.
Frankly: When did the left start supporting groups that display so much anger in their platform?
DS: I see lots and lots of anger on Tea Party blogs. I see outright bigotry there as well. Check out Tea Party Nation if you want evidence: teapartynation.com.[/quote]
Kudos to Mr. Shor for acknowledging that we should treat the Tea Party movement as a diverse community, like those protesting abortion, gay marriage and war. Just like that have their crazy fringe (I’ve read some pretty nutty blogs on those topics!), so do some in the Tea Party.
Perhaps we’re finding some common ground here? Unless I’m mistaken and we’re supposed to make blanket statements about the Tea Party while understanding other movements have a diverse community.
(Since you all don’t know me well….I’m not a member of any Tea Party group, I’m pro-choice, a HUGE advocate for gay marriage, and was against the wars initiated in the Bush years.)
[i]Tea Party anger[/i]
Sure Don. That stereotype has been hyped by the left and media. The fact is that there is a very small minority extreme element in the Tea Party spouting anger. However, the leadership is calm cool and collected. The anger you associate with the Tea Party is the response from the rabid left… and probably in part because these leaders are calm, cool and collected.
Here are some Tea Party leaders and you please show me some proof of some angry rant.
National leadership.
– Sarah Palin
– Ron Paul
– Jim DeMint
– Michele Bachmann
CA Politicians
-Tom McClintock
-Wally Herger
-Jeff Denham
Now let’s check on a few prominent leaders of the black community…
– Maxine Waters
[quote]I have a right to my anger, and I don’t want anybody telling me I shouldn’t be, that it’s not nice to be, and that something’s wrong with me because I get angry.
This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. And as far as I’m concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell. [/quote]
– Al Sharpton:
[quote]”America’s founders consisted of the worst criminals, the rejects they sent from Europe and sent them to the colonies. So if some cracker come and tell you ‘Well my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold you pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of, that means their forefathers was crooks”[/quote]
– Lois Farrakhan
[quote]White people are potential humans – they haven’t evolved yet.[/quote]
– Charlie Rangel
[quote]“It is the same group we faced in the South with those white crackers and the dogs and the police. They didn’t care about how they looked. It was just fierce indifference to human life that caused America to say enough is enough. ‘I don’t want to see it and I am not a part of it.”
“What the hell! If you have to bomb little kids and send dogs out against human beings, give me a break.”[/quote]
I can keep on going. Black anger is well known and has been discussed before. However, it is excused by those afflicted with white guilt.
But I say that black anger is the root of many problems in the black community.
[quote]Here are some Tea Party leaders and you please show me some proof of some angry rant.
National leadership.
– Sarah Palin
– Ron Paul
– Jim DeMint
– Michele Bachmann
[/quote]
Those aren’t leaders of the Tea Party. Not a single one of the people on that list, Frankly, is a ‘leader’ of a tea party affiliate or organization. Do you truly know so little about the Tea Party movement that you believe those four are in the “national leadership” of the Tea Party? The closest might be Michele Bachmann, who is part of the Tea Party caucus in the House, and who I truly believe is unhinged and close to being delusional. Jim DeMint? Head of the Heritage Foundation? Ron Paul? Yes, Tea Party members like Sarah Palin. She is not a leader, organizer, or in any sense of the word part of the “national leadership” or any tea party affiliate.
Tea Party Nation, the reference I gave you that you appear to have ignored, is run by Judson Phillips. The other major Tea Party organization is led by Dick Arney.
Go to Tea Party Nation. Read their columns, blogs, and comments from their membership. The tea party is not “calm, cool, and collected.” Their words speak for themselves.
Here you go. Enjoy. [url]http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/20/top-tea-partier-demands-obama-prove-he-doesnt-smoke-crack-and-have-gay-sex/[/url]
And here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Nation#Reaction_to_Gabrielle_Giffords_assassination_attempt[/url]
Yeah, they’re fine folks. Calm, cool, collected:
[url]http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topic/show?id=3355873:Topic:2606100&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic[/url]
“The title of this article is”
I gave it the title, not Adachi. There was no title originally.
The funny thing is, the Tea Party was founded on anger. The video that sparked it all, Rick Santelli’s rant at the Chicago Board, was angry.
[url]http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/rick-santelli-tea-party-time/?_r=0[/url]
Nobody watching this would use the terms ‘cool, calm, and collected’. Then the movement’s choice of metaphor, the imagery and slogans: all were clearly designed to [i]promote[/i] the angry, quasi-revolutionary fervor of the movement.
Our next introduction to the Tea Party was the behavior of members packing town hall meetings during the 2009 congressional recess. Nobody would describe those folks as ‘cool, calm, and collected’.
It was curious, to those of us who supported President Obama in 2008, to see this anger come seemingly out of nowhere. After all, the basis was supposedly the TARP and bailout and fiscal stimulus efforts. But those had begun under Bush, promoted by his Treasury Secretary, and had bipartisan support. So why were people suddenly so angry in February 2009 about something that had been underway since the previous summer? What had changed? One thing: a new president.
The black leaders you list are all old, past-generation politicians who came to their positions during or just after the civil rights movement. Compare that to contemporary politicians who happen to be black, such as Cory Booker or Barack Obama. In fact, if any single politician in America epitomizes ‘cool, calm, and collected’, it is President Barack Obama. He has carefully avoided ever giving credence to an image as an angry black man. His speaking style is the opposite of those who you listed. And, like Booker and others of his generation, he rarely discusses race, seeming to do so only when it would be inappropriate for him not to.
So there was anger in the previous generation of black leadership. But by far the greatest anger I see now in the political realm is within the Tea Party movement.
In the words and mannerisms of their leaders, and those who participate. Unfortunately, some of them are sufficiently paranoid that you can only read their stuff by joining. Tea Party Nation is out there for the world to see. The others require that you register to view their blogs and columns. Give it a try.
Finally, the Tea Party has become the refuge for the true fringe elements of conservatism in the country. Birthers are all there, and there is a strong racial subtext to the birtherism belief. Particularly when it is a fantasy that has been as disproven as can be done, it simply serves now in furtherance of the theme that President Obama (usually with his middle name added for emphasis) is ‘other’ than us. From Africa, no less. And probably a Muslim. It was an Arizona Tea Party group that pushed and fueled Sheriff Arpaio’s ‘investigation’ into birtherism. By far the highest percentage of Americans who cling to the birther belief are Tea Party members.
So when you take a phrase such as ‘cool, calm, and collected’ to apply to Tea Party leaders, and you know the history of that movement, I believe this is an intentional rhetorical misdirection on your part.
Don you are deflecting again.
The list of people I provided are in fact the leaders of the Tea Party from a perspective of media. And they are ALL cool, calm and collected.
The people that I listed as leaders of the black community as per the media attention, are all routinely guilty of angry rants filled with the type of tone, language and content that would send lefties and the media into a Paula Dean-hating type tizzy.
The rage related to the Tea Party is primarily the projected rage of the left. You don’t like what they say and it makes you angry. That is not their rage, it is your rage.
The point here is that the displays of rage from these black leaders causes their black constituents to rage in kind. And rage/anger is not a positive emotion. It is not beneficial in the least to finding solution and improving the situation.
Here is one last clarifying point. Any rage that comes from the Tea Party is directed at their government. Are you going to demand that our government become another victim group that must be defended?
[i] and there is a strong racial subtext to the birtherism belief[/i]
Oh this is rich and fanciful. I have to ask, what are you smoking?
There is no racial subtext except what the left and left media manufacture. First, let’s not forget that Obama is HALF WHITE. So right off the bat your point is at least half wrong. But it is really 100% wrong because it would not matter if Obama was 100% white. If he was not born in the US, he would in fact be a fraud and impeachable. The Tea Party would go after any leftist they suspected as being a fraud and a liar related to his place of birth. And given the recent misdeeds of the IRS, it bolsters their suspicion that there is an inside job cover-up of the truth. Unfortunately, were it to be proved that Obama was born in some Muslim country and not socialist Hawaii, it would mean that Joe Biden would be President. From my perspective we are better off with Obama even if he is a fraud and a liar.
This is a pretty hateful rally sponsored by tea-party activist: (and it’s directed against Muslims, not our government)
Here is a preview: U.S. Reps. Gary Miller and Ed Royce attended an anti-Muslim rally in Santa Ana, CA, where protesters spewed hate speech at American Muslims adults and young children, attending a charity fundraiser to support a women’s shelter and charitable efforts to curb hunger and homelessness. Rep. Royce even spoke at the rally
http://whatunites.us/news/reps-gary-miller-and-ed-royce-attend-anti-muslim-hate-rally
[quote]The point here is that the displays of rage from these black leaders causes their black constituents to rage in kind. And rage/anger is not a positive emotion. It is not beneficial in the least to finding solution and improving the situation.[/quote]
I agree with you. What I don’t agree with is your statement that only black leaders demonstrate this type of behavior. I would argue that this sentiment is propagated and blown out of proportion by right wing media sources, it is destructive because it fuels “white rage” and moves us further from racial harmony and equality.
Let’s say those grey-haired people that packed town hall meetings were “angry.” [i]So?[/i]
OWS isn’t angry, with its plans to bomb bridges, riots, clashes with police, rapes, etc.? My friends involved in OWS tell me that [i]by definition [/i]anyone involved in such activities aren’t [i]really[/i] a part of the movement….those people aren’t, “representative of the larger movement.” Of course, those same friends state that the Tea Party is responsible for every sign that shows up at a Town Hall meetings and protest because, “they attract that element.” Go figure.
OWS is the refuge of the Truthers, btw. Remember that poll way back during the Bush admin that showed over half of Democrats believed that he was either somewhat or very likely to have been behind the attacks on 9-11?
[quote]It was curious, to those of us who supported President Obama in 2008, to see this anger come seemingly out of nowhere. After all, the basis was supposedly the TARP and bailout and fiscal stimulus efforts. But those had begun under Bush, promoted by his Treasury Secretary, and had bipartisan support. So why were people suddenly so angry in February 2009 about something that had been underway since the previous summer? What had changed? One thing: a new president. [/quote] A BLACK President!
That’s what you’re really saying, am I right?
It certainly couldn’t be possible that those people against Obama’s spending were also against Bush’s spending. It couldn’t be possible that people were saying, “Um. It didn’t really work when Bush did it, so why are we doubling down on bad policy?” It most certainly couldn’t be that people said, “OMG, it was largely Republicans who were on their way out that voted with Bush’s spending bills, and now we have a new admin who wants to spend into the trillions RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE.’
No. It’s only because they are racist.
B Nice and Don, please stop pulling up these Googled leftist-produced propaganda clips of insignificant events. Who the hell are Miller and Royce?
This is how you guys roll. You find some obscure whack job preacher that burns Korans and you and your corrupted leftist media pals work to brand your entire list of political opponents with being racist and anti Muslim.
Just stop.
There is hate in the Tea Party, but it is 100% hate of your brand of politics and where the country is headed. Your white guilt combined with black anger is not fixing a thing. We have a black President (well half-black) and libbies have infested the federal government and many of our state positions of power. Yet look at black outcomes. They have plummeted. And you deflect responsibility that your ideas and actions are directly responsible by pointing at a few videos of obscure and remote Tea Party events as doctored by leftist propaganda video producers as proof that white conservatives are racist… and that this somehow is the source of black strife today.
You guys are like giant ostridges with your head in the sand, but with less ability to see.
[quote]Who the hell are Miller and Royce?[/quote]
United States Congressman Gary Miller serves the California’s 31 District:
http://garymiller.house.gov
United States Congressman Ed Royce Serves the California 39 District:
http://royce.house.gov
[quote]You find some obscure whack job preacher [/quote]
These are U.S. Congressman, not obscure whack job preachers. My point in posting this video is that black leaders are not the only ones propagating hate.
[quote]Tea Party events as doctored by leftist propaganda video producers as proof that white conservatives are racist[/quote]
How come when ever you are presented with something that doesn’t fit into your narrative it is always dismissed as leftist propaganda?
You never addressed this point:
[quote]I agree with you. What I don’t agree with is your statement that only black leaders demonstrate this type of behavior. I would argue that this sentiment is propagated and blown out of proportion by right wing media sources, it is destructive because it fuels “white rage” and moves us further from racial harmony and equality.[/quote]
I just have to add this.
Accusations of racism are not a little thing, at least not to me.
Racism is ugly and dehumanizing and really-it’s a horrible accusation, along with child molester or wife beater.
Yet it’s cast about with abandon to a large swath of people because of their political beliefs. I find that abhorrent. Are some Tea Partiers racist? I’d guess that’s a fair bet. Does that mean ALL are? Um. No.
Some OWS’ers are rapists. Does that mean all are?
I know I have kept my mouth shut about issues I disagree with Obama about, because I don’t want to be labeled a racist by other moms at the elementary school pick up. It’s why I’m anonymous here. I openly criticized Bush throughout his tenure at soccer tournaments and field trips, and I have no reluctance to speak up when I approve of Obama’s policies. But I’ve seen the raised eyebrows here in Davis when someone even hints that they disagree with one of Obama’s policies. The subtext is ALWAYS there…[i]they must think he’s a Kenyan socialist.[/i]
The glee that is so apparent when some toss out the accusation of racist gives me pause. Do they really believe that? Or are they attempting to stifle dissent?
I also wonder if when people accuse others of racism if it isn’t really that they’d rather not debate the actual issue or have their assumptions challenged. Easier to dismiss millions of people as racist than to spend the time trying to understand where they are coming from…instead of discussing issues, we’re talking about who is and isn’t racist.
Eventually we’ll reach some point where during political debates broad accusations of racism will be like Godwin’s law…the person who brings it up automatically loses. Until then, I consider it to be a lazy cop-out when applied to huge chunks of people rather than individuals who deserve it.
“I know I have kept my mouth shut about issues I disagree with Obama about, because I don’t want to be labeled a racist by other moms at the elementary school pick up.”
You may need to give Davis mom’s more credit. I have lots of friends who oppose Obama on many issue’s and it’s never crossed my mind to consider them racist, nor have I heard this accusation made in Davis. I do have republican friends who have expressed discomfort in expressing their political views because they are in the political minority in this town, not because they are afraid of being labeled a racist. Has this happened to you in Davis, or do you know of anyone in Davis this has happened too?
[i]Eventually we’ll reach some point where during political debates broad accusations of racism will be like Godwin’s law…the person who brings it up automatically loses. Until then, I consider it to be a lazy cop-out when applied to huge chunks of people rather than individuals who deserve it.[/i]
We can only dream.
But Hitler was only 70 years ago, and slavery ended 150 years ago. So I am not very hopeful that race baiters will lose their platform.
[i]I also wonder if when people accuse others of racism if it isn’t really that they’d rather not debate the actual issue or have their assumptions challenged.[/I]
Absolutely. This is clearly the case. And it is not that much of a surprise because those that so often make the claim generally follow the same practice for other topics. And it has become the hallmark of the Democrat party tactic lead by the Teflon Messiah to deflect hard questions while attacking the character of everyone that disagrees with him. It works because Americans have the most marvelous media-branding system in the world. You can just throw up accusations with no basis of fact and they stick.
The use of this tactic is the primary reason why I dislike leftist ideology so much. If they would debate their ideas on merit it would be a welcome dichotomy. But they have developed a full range of social, legal and media-based shields to protect them from having to explain their flawed and destructive positions.
In fairness B. Nice it might depend on whether the person expresses policy positions for disliking Obama rather than the fact that he’s Muslim or not really an American citizen.
Spend an hour at Tea Party Nation. Unfiltered by any media. It’s all there for you, in their own words.
[url]http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topic/show?id=3355873:Topic:2608281&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic&page=2#comments[/url]
“The current POTUS is a morally corrupt, evil person. He has no humanity, no compassion, none of the qualities you associate with a normal human being. His allegiance is to Islam and his Marxist, revolutionary mentors. The personna he displayed to the American electorate to gain his election victories represents the greatest case of fraud in Anerican political history.”
“The only thing bigger than his mouth is his ego!! obama is a Traitor !How about keeping gitmo open for obama !”
Sign up, then you can get it in your email updates like I do. That was from Aug. 3, and it isn’t untypical.
[quote]And it has become the hallmark of the Democrat party tactic lead by the Teflon Messiah to deflect hard questions while attacking the character of everyone that disagrees with him. It works because Americans have the most marvelous media-branding system in the world. You can just throw up accusations with no basis of fact and they stick[/quote].
Frankly, you need to look back and read some of your posts. How often have you deflected arguments you don’t like by labeling people and attacking their character. Plus are you implying that democrats are the only ones participating in this practice? What about right wing media who immediately claim “race-baiting” any time race is mentioned, and accuse any black person who complains of discrimination a race baiter and “anti-white”.
[quote]The use of this tactic is the primary reason why I dislike leftist ideology so much. If they would debate their ideas on merit it would be a welcome dichotomy. But they have developed a full range of social, legal and media-based shields to protect them from having to explain their flawed and destructive positions.[/quote]
Replace “leftist” with right-wing and the same argument can be made.
Frankly
So if you are maintaining that racism still exists, but in so far as political leaders, does not exist in Republicans other than in leftists minds, I offer a couple of quotes.
Rick Santorum at an all white town meeting during the primaries:
“I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them other people’s money”. If he had said I don’t want to make the lives of the poor better by giving them other people’s money, no racism involved. The above is his exact quote and to me, clearly racist.
Newt Gingrich during the primaries:
“Black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps”. Note not the poor should do so. “blacks should do so”
Not racist ?
medwoman, no that is a double-standard. It is statistically clear that black outcomes are negatively out of synch with other demographics. If politicians on the left can demand greater benefits be given to the black community based on these statistics, then politicians on the right have every right to counter in kind. This does not prove that Santorum is racist or that his remark was racists. He has plenty of facts to back up the justification to direct his comment at the black situation in general.
The same is true for Gingrich.
You see, this is the basis of the problem I am trying to address. You cannot have this double-standard of race baiting, and then demonizing others for talking specifically about problems in the black community. If outcomes in the black community were not so far askew, and the left did not make such a political platform out of them, then I think you have a case.
And I also never wrote that racism does not exist in Republicans.
My point is that we have passed a point of convergence where true white racism has declined, while the amping of racial tension, anger and conflict has increased from the tactics of the media and the political left.
It works for the Democrats and the media to keep race relations enflamed. It is a devious and destructive means to an end that only benefits them. It is reverse racial scripting… it plants racism into the minds of children that previously never paid any attention to different skin color. The left political and media template foments racial conflict when society is already ready to heal and move on.
What a black child should hear today is that he/she is no different than any other child, and that he/she will face adversity and must learn to cope and persevere.
Don – let’s take a walk down the Huffington post and compare notes on hostile political vitriol coming from the left.
You still get a giant “F” grade for failing to connect any of this to Tea Party leadership. You have basically connected it to fund-raising tactics to gin up passions. Whoopee!
Like I said, this is how the left rolls… looking for twaddle for evidence and then counting on the media to amp it up to epic proportions.
Frankly, again you can’t blame it all on the left, comments like this from the right wing media contribute to the racial tensions in this country…
Think the U.S. justice system treats African Americans unfairly? Then you “simply hate America”… according to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly.
DG [quote]In fairness B. Nice it might depend on whether the person expresses policy positions for disliking Obama rather than the fact that he’s Muslim or not really an American citizen.[/quote] Actually, no. In discussions about policy.
[quote]You may need to give Davis mom’s more credit. I have lots of friends who oppose Obama on many issue’s and it’s never crossed my mind to consider them racist, nor have I heard this accusation made in Davis. I do have republican friends who have expressed discomfort in expressing their political views because they are in the political minority in this town, not because they are afraid of being labeled a racist. Has this happened to you in Davis, or do you know of anyone in Davis this has happened too?[/quote] Actually, yes. I’ve been in countless conversations where people have made disparaging comments about other Davisites (not present) because they were Republican and/or some brand of conservative. Absolutely racism accusations were thrown out there…sometimes along the Don’s comment, “Oh, they were FINE with Tarp when it was Bush, but now a black man does it and they suddenly have a problem with it.” A common refrain is, “What is different about THIS President, [i]HMMMMMM[/i]?”
I have, at times, pointed out that many of my Republican (and Democratic, and independent) friends did in fact have a problem with Tarp under the Bush admin…often to be met with something like, “Well, that just goes to show how racist they are. They didn’t form a PARTY to protest Bush!” Nevermind that some of those same people were actively involved with MOB (Moms Opposed to Bush) and hated the man with a passion I’ve not seen mirrored by any Republicans I personally know, nevermind that Bush was on his way out, nevermind that the Tea Partiers were expressing anger at the REPUBLICANS who voted for Tarp one and two, nevermind that Herman Cain was the candidate favored by the Tea Party (“He’s an Uncle Tom who they just trot out to prove they aren’t racist!” Which I think is a racist comment itself…because obviously they think all African Americans must think alike, and so one who doesn’t must be a traitor to their race and a gullible patsy)…
I had a neighbor refuse to speak to me for weeks when they found out I didn’t vote for Obama…they dragged the information out of me reluctantly, I don’t normally share with people I don’t know well. Admittedly she didn’t call me a racist, but she implied that I might be. The fact that I didn’t vote Republican was irrelevant.
Anyway, you hear this repeated daily on MSNBC…the only reason people oppose Obama is because they just can’t stand a black man being in the highest office. Former President Carter’s even expressed that sentiment himself.
B Nice. How come you cut off the Bill O’Reilly quote?
[quote]Think the U.S. justice system treats African Americans unfairly? Then you “simply hate America” [b]or suffer a “victim mentality,”[/b][/quote]
[quote]Rick Santorum at an all white town meeting during the primaries:
“I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them other people’s money”. If he had said I don’t want to make the lives of the poor better by giving them other people’s money, no racism involved. The above is his exact quote and to me, clearly racist.
Newt Gingrich during the primaries:
“Black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps”. Note not the poor should do so. “blacks should do so”
Not racist ? [/quote] I don’t know if they are racist or not.
I will say that when discussing Welfare, I often see people trying to have it both ways. It’s racist when a Republican /conservative includes race in the discussion as in the two examples above.
But it’s also racist when a Republican/conservative discusses REDUCING Welfare, because it will “disproportionately” affect minorities.
So damned if you do, damned if you don’t?
[quote]Don – let’s take a walk down the Huffington post and compare notes on hostile political vitriol coming from the left.
You still get a giant “F” grade for failing to connect any of this to Tea Party leadership. You have basically connected it to fund-raising tactics to gin up passions. Whoopee! [/quote]
I’ve never seen anything at HuffPost, or Drudge, or any other news aggregator that even begins to approach the bile I see at Tea Party Nation. I check all three daily. But it’s an odd comparison. I’d say look at DailyKos, perhaps, if you want to compare vitriol.
Tea Party leadership is exactly what I’ve pointed you to three times now. Tea Party leadership is folks like Judson Phillips. This stuff is in my in-box every day. I’m guessing you haven’t spent sixty seconds on a tea party site yet.
[quote]Like I said, this is how the left rolls… looking for twaddle for evidence and then counting on the media to amp it up to epic proportions.[/quote]
Which, of course, makes no sense since I’ve pointed you toward a site that is directly tea party, unfiltered, un-amped except by their own fervor.
I will also offer a couple of quotes.
Biden: Obama is, “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
Not racist?
Dan Rather, “(Obama’s) a nice person, he’s very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.”
Not racist?
Then their is the Harry Reid statement about how Obama is a “light skinned African American” with “no Negro dialect unless he wants to have one.” (I didn’t look up the quote, so could be wrong verb tense.
Not racist?
UGH. Then THERE is the Harry Reid statement. *shudder*
Too much editing, not enough proofing. Five demerits for me.
Some good, civil, kind, caring and pleasant liberal progressives making their case… to “string up” Clarence Tomas.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc&feature=player_embedded[/url]
This proves that the entire liberal wing of the Democrat party are racist based on Don’t logic.
…
“B Nice. How come you cut off the Bill O’Reilly quote?
Think the U.S. justice system treats African Americans unfairly? Then you “simply hate America” or suffer a “victim mentality,””
Finishing the quote actually makes it less palatable, I was focusing on the beginning because we are discussing inflammatory “hate” speech. It’s basically telling black people if they complain about bring treated unfairly by the justice system they either hate America or our victims. How is this not inflammatory? It dismisses any claim that a black person makes, even a legitimate one. How is this not racist?
[quote]This proves that the entire liberal wing of the Democrat party are racist based on Don’t logic. [/quote]
That was a Democratic Party rally? Exactly what organization was that? Who were the leaders? What were the speakers saying to the crowd?
Those were racist and vile statements. Much like what I read on the sites I’ve linked for you.
[quote]Not racist? [/quote]
Those comments by Biden and Reid were widely criticized at the time. In fact, Biden’s was the first bump that pretty much derailed his campaign. I hadn’t heard the one from Dan Rather.
Three 15 year old black kids brutally beat up 13 year old white kid on bus in Florida. Where’s Al Sharpton, where’s the liberal outrage?
[url]http://www.fox28.com/story/23050347/2013/08/05/graphic-video[/url]
[i]How is this not inflammatory? It dismisses any claim that a black person makes, even a legitimate one. How is this not racist? [/i]
It may have been inflammatory, but it was not racist. His comment applies to white liberals as well as blacks as well as purples.
I think his point has merit. There are a lot of people holding the opinion that black criminal justice outcomes are evidence of black-bias, when cornered, will admit that they don’t like America as designed, and think the Constitution should be some living document. That position can be defined as hating America… because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the basis for what American is. If you demand that these documents be changed, then it is clear that you at least do no like American as designed. Maybe “hate” is too strong a word for all people holding this view.
I also think his point about “victim mentality” is valid.
I was talking to a friend a few days ago. He is a white male lamenting the fact that he feels like he is the only demographic unable to buy a victim card that would help get special attention and provide an excuse for any bad behavior. I said: “isn’t it ironic that it was mostly white males that formed this marvelous country that so many migrate to so they too can be corrupted into a zombie victim-state by American liberals?”
He made an interesting observation… that the lack of special victim attention results in a person being more self-reliant. And because of that, white males are probably destined to dominate places of leadership in private industry… thereby increasing the victim posture of other demographic groups as they find it increasingly impossible to compete for a bigger piece of the economic pie.
[quote]…and think the Constitution should be some living document. That position can be defined as hating America…[/quote]
How many times has it been amended?
Republican platform, 2012: [quote]We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.[/quote]
[quote]”isn’t it ironic that it was mostly white males that formed this marvelous country [/quote]
Seems to me they were self-selected, and excluded non-whites and non-males.
[quote]Where’s Al Sharpton, where’s the liberal outrage? [/quote]
Al Sharpton is very selective in his indignation, and is IMO a morally reprehensible and ethically bereft individual. But I consider him a relic at this point.
[i]Seems to me they were self-selected, and excluded non-whites and non-males.[/i]
I hate to think what might have happened had liberals forced affirmative action and Title IX on that group.
The point was that they did a damn fine job given the times to create a system of governance that resulted in the greatest nation ever on God’s green earth.
Al Sharpton is a media darling. He is the voice of the black perspective for racial dialog. So you might consider him a relic, but he is still controlling much of the narrative and is influential because of media time given. How many minutes of media time did he get relative to the TM / GZ trial? A lot.
So until there are other black leaders getting this level of attention, by point still stands that Al Sharpton is a primary leader of the black community.
Not so for Jessie Jackson.
Rev. Al Sharpton hosts a weekday, primetime MSNBC news show…and according to his bio on that site he, “also hosts a nationally syndicated radio show that broadcasts in 40 markets, five days a week.”
He’s been to the White House 9 times thus far in 2013 alone; more than Kathleen Sebelius (5).
[quote] when cornered, will admit that they don’t like America as designed, and think the Constitution should be some living document. That position can be defined as hating America… because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the basis for what American is. If you demand that these documents be changed, then it is clear that you at least do no like American as designed. Maybe “hate” is too strong a word for all people holding this view.
[/quote]
Are you saying that anyone who want’s to make changes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights “do not like” America?
[quote]isn’t it ironic that it was mostly white males that formed this marvelous country[/quote]
Where any other options available at the time?
[quote]”isn’t it ironic that it was mostly white males that formed this marvelous country”[/quote]
And black people got to be slaves, and women were denied many basic rights that men enjoyed, funny how that worked out…
[i]Are you saying that anyone who want’s to make changes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights “do not like” America?[/i]
I think are some on the left that view the Constitution itself, and the strict constructionist position of many Americans, as impediments to them achieving a dream of some transformation of American into a more socialist, collectivist design.
I think many of these people dislike America as designed.
I think many of these people are unhappy and feel somehow disenfranchised from America as designed, but most of them are simply unable to maintain any rational perspective of how good America as designed really is. They are unable to see this because of the fog of their own emotional turmoil and personal dissatisfaction with aspects of their existence. And in this turmoil they would selfishly destroy America as designed if only to feel a little better about themselves and their situation.
But as history has proven over and over, these impulses to change something only to feel better by comparison, effectively lowers the happiness, satisfaction and ultimate success of the larger group.
It is like the raging soon to be ex-husband that burns down his house because in that instant he thinks he would be happier not having to see his ex-wife living there.
[quote]But as history has proven over and over, these impulses to change something only to feel better by comparison, effectively lowers the happiness, satisfaction and ultimate success of the larger group. [/quote]
So the addition of the 13th and 14th amendments lowered the effective happiness, satisfaction, and ultimate success of the larger group?
[i]And black people got to be slaves, and women were denied many basic rights that men enjoyed, funny how that worked out…[/i]
And those same American white males worked hard to free the slaves and to pass women’s suffrage.
And note that American did these things before most countries. Oh yes, slavery and discrimination of women was pretty widespread before the shining city on the hill led the way. And for most of the West the changes with women’s right to vote all happened around the same time. Men are funny that way… once they are made to understand something about women, they all comply.
[quote]I think many of these people are unhappy and feel somehow disenfranchised from America as designed, but most of them are simply unable to maintain any rational perspective of how good America as designed really is.[/quote]
Some of the ways America was designed was really f*** up for anyone who was not a white, male, land owner.
[i]So the addition of the 13th and 14th amendments lowered the effective happiness, satisfaction, and ultimate success of the larger group?[/i]
I forgot that I would include the Declaration of Independence into the list of documents that are the basis for the design of our country.
Actually, both 13 and 14 were supported by previous of these declarations, articles and amendments. They were only clarifying amendments. They were not amendments to transform the Constitution into a Marxist tool.
[i]Some of the ways America was designed was really f*** up for anyone who was not a white, male, land owner[/i]
The industrial revolution changed all that. You could be successful with an idea and drive to make it happen. You could be successful adding value to the production of goods and services. The design of America created the industrial revolution that has led to the raising of economic circumstances for billions of people on the planet. You are welcome China.
The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution. Should we have kept that one?
B. Nice: [quote]And black people got to be slaves, and women were denied many basic rights that men enjoyed, funny how that worked out…[/quote] And some of those black people were already slaves in Africa, owned by other black people there and then sold to white people. There were whites held in indentured servitude in the US as well; it’s how my ancestor arrived here nearly 250 years ago. There were even a few blacks, particularly in the New Orleans region, who held other blacks as slaves.
We talk about slavery like it is unique to the US, and as if every white man is guilty, and every woman black man MUST be a victim.
B. Nice: [quote]Some of the ways America was designed was really f*** up for anyone who was not a white, male, land owner [/quote] Again, it’s not like the US had a patent on this. It’s not like a whole bunch of men from Europe said, “Hey. Women and blacks have way too much freedom here. Let’s leave this land of enlightenment go start a new country and oppress them.”
No we should not have… because it conflicted with “All men are created equal”. This declaration predated the Constitution but it was in fact possibly the most important phrase uttered by one of those marvelous and brilliant white men that founded this great country.
Ginger-The fact that slavery existed other places makes it no less abhorrent that it existed in this country and was condoned by our founding father. Nor does the fact that other countries denied rights to women.
This was all brought up because Frankly claimed those who wanted to change the constitution disliked America, I assume you are happy with the changes that have been made that granted black people their freedom and civil rights and agree that the people who pushed for these changes were not anti-American.
[quote]This declaration predated the Constitution but it was in fact possibly the most important phrase uttered by one of those marvelous and brilliant white men that founded this great country[/quote].
Yet some of these marvelous and brilliant white men went on to write a Constitution that condoned the owning of other people. How do you rectify that. Maybe they didn’t consider slaves “men”?
Why weren’t any brilliant black men ALLOWED to join in on the process? Or brilliant women?
[quote]I think many of these people are unhappy and feel somehow disenfranchised from America as designed,[/quote]
Maybe because the only people allowed to be part of the process were rich, white, men.
I think those men weren’t necessarily marvelous and brilliant. They were a pretty diverse group of middle-class, moderately wealthy merchants, landowners, slave-owners in some cases; a couple were farmers.
I think the structure and documents they came up with reflected a lot of self-interest when you look at those occupations. And it reflected their experiences, so it shows the values and tribulations of that time in our history very well. I would definitely describe those men as pragmatic, so the documents were very practical. They were changeable, and yet laid an excellent foundation for our country. I don’t think they were ever intended to be static. The tension between strict constructionists and liberal constructionists began almost immediately, and continues.
Liberal constructionism isn’t unpatriotic or un-American.
[quote]The point was that they did a damn fine job given the times to create a system of governance[/quote]
Key words in your sentence are “given the times”. Yes, I agree, they did a good job given the times in which they lived. This does not mean that their understanding of equality, which they certainly did not feel pertained to blacks, or women,or Native Americans is a model for how we should approach these groups today. I certainly would not want to be locked into a literal understanding of what they meant by the words and their understanding of them and would hope that you would not either.
Ginger
[quote]Biden: Obama is, “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
Not racist?
Dan Rather, “(Obama’s) a nice person, he’s very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.”
Not racist?
Then their is the Harry Reid statement about how Obama is a “light skinned African American” with “no Negro dialect unless he wants to have one.” (I didn’t look up the quote, so could be wrong verb tense.
Not racist?
[/quote]
I think that there is an equal chance that these comments, just like the comments of Santorum and Gingrich,
reflect unrecognized racial bias. I think, as previously stated that we all have unconscious biases. I do not believe unlike Frankly that either side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on bias. I think what would be most productive would be for every one to look first to their own heart to detect their own biases and attempt to address those rather than being so quick to point fingers at the other side.
I think it was B Nice that made a comment I think is very valid. Pointing out the someone else is biased, does not in any justify or validate bias just because one agrees with one political philosophy or another.
Interesting Article: “Let’s Give Up the Constitution”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all
[quote]I think that there is an equal chance that these comments, just like the comments of Santorum and Gingrich,
reflect unrecognized racial bias. I think, as previously stated that we all have unconscious biases. I do not believe unlike Frankly that either side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on bias. I think what would be most productive would be for every one to look first to their own heart to detect their own biases and attempt to address those rather than being so quick to point fingers at the other side.
I think it was B Nice that made a comment I think is very valid. Pointing out the someone else is biased, does not in any justify or validate bias just because one agrees with one political philosophy or another.[/quote] I totally agree…usually I hear people say that, “Oh, that’s just Biden being Biden.” or, “So and so works tirelessly for XYZ, we [b]know[/b][i] he’s[/i] not racist.”
I don’t know the context of any of the Biden, Rather, or Reid quotes, but I can absolutely, positively say that there is NO WAY I’d ever possibly utter any of those statements, nor anything like them. I can’t imagine the scenario that would make [i]anyone[/i] say that…especially career politicians or people that craft words for a living.
I went back and listened to the Santorum quote medwoman described thusly:
[quote]Rick Santorum at an all white town meeting during the primaries: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them other people’s money”. f he had said I don’t want to make the lives of the poor better by giving them other people’s money, no racism involved. The above is his exact quote and to me, clearly racist. [/quote]
After hearing the context, I could imagine me saying it. He speaks for a few minutes, off the cuff (this wasn’t a teleprompter speech) giving examples of families and situations regarding welfare, how the state of Iowa was going to be fined if they didn’t get more people added to the Welfare rolls, “They’re pushing harder and harder to get more and more of YOU [i](he gestures to the audience)[/i] dependent upon them so they can get your vote. That’s the bottom line. I don’t want to- to- make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to earn the money and provide for themselves and their families.”
So if you pluck out that one fragment of a sentence, it sounds racist. But if you listen to the entire context and realize that before and after it he does reference white people, other poor people, it’s a perfectly reasonable statement.
I decided to research the Gingrich quote as well (I’m avoiding work) and I don’t find it problematic either. He was speaking specifically about African Americans, not even just about Welfare, and he was making a bid to speak in front of the NAACP.
Like I said earlier…when conservatives and Republicans talk about reducing Welfare, the left immediately calls it a war on women and blacks, because they would be more adversely affected as they are on Welfare in higher percentages. If a conservative/Republican even dares to speak to racial issues, sentence fragments can be clipped and just used as proof that THEY ARE ALL RACIST.
When Clinton talked about reducing welfare, the Kennedy wing of the party lambasted him. But he worked with the Republicans, reformed welfare, got it done anyway. Those were the good old days.
Gingrich makes sort of professorial comments like that regularly, in an academic analytical manner. I don’t see any racial emphasis, any more than when Daniel Patrick Moynihan did that sort of thing. I have a lot of disagreement with Gingrich, and a lot of reasons to really dislike Santorum, but those quotes don’t really prove anything to me.
[quote]When Clinton talked about reducing welfare, the Kennedy wing of the party lambasted him. But he worked with the Republicans, reformed welfare, got it done anyway. Those were the good old days.
Gingrich makes sort of professorial comments like that regularly, in an academic analytical manner. I don’t see any racial emphasis, any more than when Daniel Patrick Moynihan did that sort of thing. I have a lot of disagreement with Gingrich, and a lot of reasons to really dislike Santorum, but those quotes don’t really prove anything to me.[/quote] Totally agree with everything. Including the last sentence.
Ginger, I like and appreciate your style on this blog. There have not been as many that cause me to nod my head in agreement while also opening up my mind a bit to see things from a slightly different perspective.
B. Nice, I like your style too. You, Don and medwoman routinely see the world 180 degrees differently than I do and I get to complement my Ginger-powered exercise routine of up and down head nods with lots of back and forth head nods. Bidilin and Toad just makes me grin from their snark-infested comments.
First this…
[i]Frankly claimed those who wanted to change the constitution disliked America[/I]
Then this…
[i]Interesting Article: “Let’s Give Up the Constitution”
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all[/url] [/I]
So which is it B. Nice? “change” the constitution or “give up” the constitution? Making adjustments based on original intent are much different than what these transform America extremists want.
Here is a fine rebuttal to the rambling, confused substitute for logic delivered by Professor Louis Michael Seidman:
[url]http://www.redstate.com/andrewhyman/2013/01/02/lets-give-up-on-professor-louis-michael-seidman/[/url]
I would guess that Professor Seidman was being intentionally provocative. It can be an interesting teaching technique. If he’s serious in his essay, then he should understand that his own logic undercuts his main premise.
“So which is it B. Nice? “change” the constitution or “give up” the constitution? Making adjustments based on original intent are much different than what these transform America extremists want.”
I thought it was interesting article that makes some interesting observation. Like Don said I think he is being intentional provocative to make a point, especially with the title. So no I don’t think we we should give up the constitution but I do think we need to put into the context in which it was written, and by who, and not accuse those who want to alter it of “hating” America”.
The framers wrote:
“that to secure these right governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. When ever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to altar or to abolish it laying its foundations on such principals and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.