Police in America

[Federberg]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/01/the-county-kern-county-deadliest-police-killings

 

Thought this link was interesting, but couldn't find a thread that would specifically suit it. In any case, this topic probably merits a thread all of it's own. I've never had any issues going to the United States, but I have to confess, the more I see the more I don't like

 

[calitennis127]

Federberg, it really is getting crazy over here. Black people walking out of Dunkin Doughnuts have to worry about being shot because everyone assumes they stole the doughnuts. If you are black and you leave a bank with cash in your hand, the police will automatically shoot you because they think you robbed the bank. It is so out of control it is scary.....if I were you I would stay really far away from the U.S. because of how disturbing it is over here for black people. It is basically like a rejuvenated apartheid on steroids.

You may also be interested in what this white supremacist, the black football player Richard Sherman, had to say about police brutality in America. He is from one of the most violent cities in the United States, an experience I am sure you can relate to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiIIkCLkqkk

 

 

[Billie]

^^ Very nicely said by Sherman, thanks Cali for putting it up. 

I don't think that the witch hunt on police officers can bring anybody any good.  Vast majority are good people, trained to serve and protect us.  They jump in where there is trouble and give their lives for our safety.

 

[Federberg]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...if-she-were-a-white-woman-says-bernie-sanders



This is is the thing I keep coming back to. If Bernie Sanders is right then there really is a problem

 

[Federberg]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/the-counted-police-killings-2015-young-black-men

 

[Federberg]

Just been reading about Ethan Couch the so called affluenza teen. So this kid runs drives and kills people and he gets probation. Meanwhile a black woman gets arrested for a trivial possibly incorrect traffic violation and dies in jail. Not suggesting these incidents are connected, but no one in America is surprised by either incident. I just can't believe the disparity is defensible. There should be more outrage

 

[shawnbm]

There is a ton of coverage and outrage about the affluenza teen.  There has been coverage of the lady who died after arrest also.  A disproportionate number of violent crime and, therefore gun crime in third oersona, occurs in black urban areas.  Hence, there can't possibly be as much coverage about whites who do these kinds of crimes--the numbers aren't there.  Conversely, when a white commits these types of crimes, it gets more play, particularly if it's law enforcement--which polices colored neighborhoods as well (blacks and Hispanics and Asian).  Meanwhile, the nation has been stirred into an uproar by the press that white cop on black youth crime is this out of control thing that threatens to take the country back to the pre-civil rights act days, all the while paying largely no attention that te majority of urban police forces are manned by black or colored officers.  If that is not irony.  It is what it is.

 

[Moxie]

There is a ton of coverage and outrage about the affluenza teen. There has been coverage of the lady who died after arrest also. A disproportionate number of violent crime and, therefore gun crime in third oersona, occurs in black urban areas. Hence, there can’t possibly be as much coverage about whites who do these kinds of crimes–the numbers aren’t there. Conversely, when a white commits these types of crimes, it gets more play, particularly if it’s law enforcement–which polices colored neighborhoods as well (blacks and Hispanics and Asian). Meanwhile, the nation has been stirred into an uproar by the press that white cop on black youth crime is this out of control thing that threatens to take the country back to the pre-civil rights act days, all the while paying largely no attention that te majority of urban police forces are manned by black or colored officers. If that is not irony. It is what it is.

Beyond your antiquated and surprising use of the term "colored," your statement that the majority of urban police forces are manned by non-white officers is not borne out by fact:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/03/us/the-race-gap-in-americas-police-departments.html?_r=0

 

[shawnbm]

I was not aware of that study, but it still does not change the fact that there are so many more black and hispanic officers than twenty or thirty or forty years ago.  There is more interaction between different races in our police departments and that has had positive effects I would imagine.  The false narrative is that if white officers shoot a black youth (almost always male I think we can agree) there must be some racial thing to it.  I don't buy it except for a few exceptional cases.  The real emphasis should be on why--after decades of affirmative action, preference hiring in public works, legal protection in terms of quotas in certain fields and education (all stuff that young black males of today's grandparents had NONE OF WHATSOEVER)--an alarming number of communities with young black males are going nowhere, crime is rampant (against fellow blacks and their businesses mostly--which the more white than black police--it turns out in many cases--are there to protect), violence is a daily occurrence, etc.?  Why?  Must the Black Panthers come back out and start patrolling the neighborhoods?  As for colored, I chose the word intentionally because I am not a fan of PC.  If the use of the term colored was good enough for Dr. King and the folks of the civil rights movement, I see no problem with it.  Thanks for the article, thoguh, an interesting read even though I could only spend a minute scanning it.

 

[Moxie]

I think everyone would have agreed that there is more racial diversity in the police forces across the board in the US.  That is very different from claiming they have a majority representation.  Your other points, as to the racist component to white cop on black kid crime, and why the AA community still suffers as an under-class is the stuff of graduate theses, and I won't tackle it now.

However, as to your choice to use the word "colored": choosing not to be "PC" is one thing.  Being offensive is another.  You don't have to use "spokesperson" if you prefer "spokesman."  But "colored" is a word that the African-American community, and essentially the general populace in the US,  has eschewed, as old-guard, and racist.  Dr. King used it, because it was a convention in his time.  Mark Twain used the N-word, as it was a convention in his, and therefore colloquially reported in dialogue...in a novel.  (It still causes problems with "Huckleberry Finn," which I disagree with.)  That doesn't give you carte blanche to use either.  If you are not a person of color, yourself, I think you'd do better to opt for the adjectives that people in minority groups prefer for themselves.  It's not just "PC."  It's gracious.  And the alternative has the tinge of racism, which I'm sure you don't want.

 

[Federberg]

I confess I'm not particularly pc, but if it causes offence then it's a simple thing to change. We can talk all we want about affirmative action but to a large degree society still makes it difficult for some of these communities to advance. I recall the aftermath of LBJ's civil rights legislation and the extreme difficulties AA's had getting housing finance in many states. Yes in theory the legislative infrastructure was in place, but if there was an entrenched unwillingness to execute the new rights AA's would be no less disadvantaged. So while I recognise that affirmative action legislation exists I think it's somewhat lazy to believe that's all it takes to change centuries of disadvantage and discrimination. It's not that simple sadly

 

[britbox]

The thing with "causes offence" is who decides what's offensive? and what sort of numbers are required to legitimize this as?

I find political correctness very divisive more than anything else.

Growing up in the UK...

70s, early 80s... spastic was a term used for mentally handicapped.  The main fundraising body was the spastics society.  Now spastic is a so-called "offensive" term.

Then "handicapped" was the non-offensive term.... then that was classed as derogatory... then it was disabled... later deemed offensive... then "physically impaired"... then "special needs..." - who the hell decides what term to use and what is "offensive".   In my experience, usually white middle class left wing meddlers with not a lot better to do and certainly not one of the group they purport to speak for.

The same stuff applied to race - "coloured" was supposed to be the correct way to define a person of colour.  I believe the latter is still "fine" but the former is now (according to Moxie at least), some sort of derogatory slur..  How do you keep track of all this and why are people supposedly so offended in the first place??

I get called a "pommy bastard" regularly in Oz by colleagues and friends alike - no malice or intent involved, just banter.  Yet some sensitive woman joined an ex-pats group on Facebook saying she thought being called a "pom" was a racial slur against the British.  Ironically, the group she joined to vent this rant was called "Poms in Oz".

Political Correctness = Annoying Crap.

 

[Billie]

Political Correctness = Annoying Crap.  LOL  I agree.

It gets even worse when you are not a native speaker, to heck with all the expressions and slang

 

[Moxie]

The thing with “causes offence” is who decides what’s offensive? and what sort of numbers are required to legitimize this as? I find political correctness very divisive more than anything else. Growing up in the UK… 70s, early 80s… spastic was a term used for mentally handicapped. The main fundraising body was the spastics society. Now spastic is a so-called “offensive” term. Then “handicapped” was the non-offensive term…. then that was classed as derogatory… then it was disabled… later deemed offensive… then “physically impaired”… then “special needs…” – who the hell decides what term to use and what is “offensive”. In my experience, usually white middle class left wing meddlers with not a lot better to do and certainly not one of the group they purport to speak for. The same stuff applied to race – “coloured” was supposed to be the correct way to define a person of colour. I believe the latter is still “fine” but the former is now (according to Moxie at least), some sort of derogatory slur.. How do you keep track of all this and why are people supposedly so offended in the first place?? I get called a “pommy bastard” regularly in Oz by colleagues and friends alike – no malice or intent involved, just banter. Yet some sensitive woman joined an ex-pats group on Facebook saying she thought being called a “pom” was a racial slur against the British. Ironically, the group she joined to vent this rant was called “Poms in Oz”. Political Correctness = Annoying Crap.

I think who gets to decide what's offensive is the group it applies to. I'm not sure if it's your "experience" or your perception that it's white liberals who decide. I would say you think so because it's white liberals who you find to be espousing it. "Politically correct" terms have a different lineage in different countries. In the US, the "correct" terms for having African heritage have changed throughout the 50s-80s, when African-American was settled on, and all driven from within the community itself. (I'm old enough to remember the evolution.) It is considered respectful to abide by the term that the community chooses for itself, and offensive to ignore that. As to the term "colored," it has different meanings in different English-speaking cultures, (in South Africa it means "mixed-race" only, not black African,) and so is non-specific, and not particularly useful. Also, it lumps a lot of folks together, with no regard for their heritage. Doesn't that seem offensive, just on its face? It's much more generous to know a person's background and give it more deference. Also, I will say this, I asked a friend of mine who is mixed race (Anglo and black African) from England how she felt about the term "coloured," since it is used more liberally in England and So. Africa, for example, then here in the US, and she said she found it offensive. I would hope that is enough for some people.

To say that political correctness is "annoying" really smacks of white privilege. So sorry to inconvenience you that people who come from a place where they've experienced discrimination want to take control of their identity. Perhaps if you'd think of it not so much as being politically correct, (i.e., having something forced on you by others,) and more as a way of honoring people for who they are and how they chose to identify, it would be easier to embrace.

I don't think you getting called a "Pom" in Oz is the same thing. Obviously, it doesn't offend you, in the right spirit. You're a white dude from the 1st world. Slang terms for Italians and Irish no longer have any sting here in the US, because we've been assimilated effectively here in the US. That was not so in the times of my Italian and Irish grandparents. And I don't mind being called a "chick," unless it demeans my work, because I'm a middle-class white woman. It's water off a duck's back, when you have privilege on your side.

 

[I.Haychew]

britbox wrote:
The thing with “causes offence” is who decides what’s offensive? and what sort of numbers are required to legitimize this as? I find political correctness very divisive more than anything else. Growing up in the UK… 70s, early 80s… spastic was a term used for mentally handicapped. The main fundraising body was the spastics society. Now spastic is a so-called “offensive” term. Then “handicapped” was the non-offensive term…. then that was classed as derogatory… then it was disabled… later deemed offensive… then “physically impaired”… then “special needs…” – who the hell decides what term to use and what is “offensive”. In my experience, usually white middle class left wing meddlers with not a lot better to do and certainly not one of the group they purport to speak for. The same stuff applied to race – “coloured” was supposed to be the correct way to define a person of colour. I believe the latter is still “fine” but the former is now (according to Moxie at least), some sort of derogatory slur.. How do you keep track of all this and why are people supposedly so offended in the first place?? I get called a “pommy bastard” regularly in Oz by colleagues and friends alike – no malice or intent involved, just banter. Yet some sensitive woman joined an ex-pats group on Facebook saying she thought being called a “pom” was a racial slur against the British. Ironically, the group she joined to vent this rant was called “Poms in Oz”. Political Correctness = Annoying Crap.

I think who gets to decide what’s offensive is the group it applies to. It is considered respectful to abide by the term that the community chooses for itself, and offensive to ignore that. I would hope that is enough for some people. To say that political correctness is “annoying” really smacks of white privilege. So sorry to inconvenience you that people who come from a place where they’ve experienced discrimination want to take control of their identity. Perhaps if you’d think of it not so much as being politically correct, (i.e., having something forced on you by others,) and more as a way of honoring people for who they are and how they chose to identify, it would be easier to embrace.

I hear, on a daily basis, blacks refer to other blacks as "niggas". Is it then okay for me, as a white guy, to call blacks "niggas"?

 

[Moxie]

Moxie wrote:
<blockquote>
britbox wrote:
The thing with “causes offence” is who decides what’s offensive? and what sort of numbers are required to legitimize this as? I find political correctness very divisive more than anything else. Growing up in the UK… 70s, early 80s… spastic was a term used for mentally handicapped. The main fundraising body was the spastics society. Now spastic is a so-called “offensive” term. Then “handicapped” was the non-offensive term…. then that was classed as derogatory… then it was disabled… later deemed offensive… then “physically impaired”… then “special needs…” – who the hell decides what term to use and what is “offensive”. In my experience, usually white middle class left wing meddlers with not a lot better to do and certainly not one of the group they purport to speak for. The same stuff applied to race – “coloured” was supposed to be the correct way to define a person of colour. I believe the latter is still “fine” but the former is now (according to Moxie at least), some sort of derogatory slur.. How do you keep track of all this and why are people supposedly so offended in the first place?? I get called a “pommy bastard” regularly in Oz by colleagues and friends alike – no malice or intent involved, just banter. Yet some sensitive woman joined an ex-pats group on Facebook saying she thought being called a “pom” was a racial slur against the British. Ironically, the group she joined to vent this rant was called “Poms in Oz”. Political Correctness = Annoying Crap.

I think who gets to decide what’s offensive is the group it applies to. It is considered respectful to abide by the term that the community chooses for itself, and offensive to ignore that. I would hope that is enough for some people. To say that political correctness is “annoying” really smacks of white privilege. So sorry to inconvenience you that people who come from a place where they’ve experienced discrimination want to take control of their identity. Perhaps if you’d think of it not so much as being politically correct, (i.e., having something forced on you by others,) and more as a way of honoring people for who they are and how they chose to identify, it would be easier to embrace.</blockquote>
I hear, on a daily basis, blacks refer to other blacks as “niggas”. Is it then okay for me, as a white guy, to call blacks “niggas”?

If you read again what I wrote above, the way these words are heard is, in part, about intent.  And the notion of how you use them should be about respect.  As to your question, if you have a load of African American friends and you are comfortable with that, and they are, too, that should be fine.  If you have to ask me, I'd guess that, well, no...it's probably not okay.  In the absence of a deep trust and connection, a word generally used as a slur will be taken as such.  Is that so hard to parse out?

 

[britbox]

It's a privilege to be white Moxie??

Don't you think that sounds a little patronising?

Offence is *usually* taken, not given like you say (agreed). It's about intent... and that is what Political correctness ignores. You just pulled shawnbm on a term he used where i doubt there was any "intent"... and globally "African American" isn't a viable term as it only applies to one country on earth.

 

[Moxie]

It’s a privilege to be white Moxie?? Don’t you think that sounds a little patronising? Offence is *usually* taken, not given like you say (agreed). It’s about intent… and that is what Political correctness ignores. You just pulled shawnbm on a term he used where i doubt there was any “intent”… and globally “African American” isn’t a viable term as it only applies to one country on earth.

It is a privilege to be white in this world, and I don't think that needs a lot of explaining. And to be white and from the 1st world is a double-bonus. I'm not sure what's patronizing about pointing that out, in the context of how to speak about minorities. I didn't pull shawnbm out...I also suggested to him that I didn't believe his intent was racist. We were talking terms. Also, I think I explained that these terms differ depending on countries. African-American very specifically is ours, here in the US. Afro-Caribbean is one that the Brits use, but doesn't apply to anyone who is from African-only background. We here basically invented the hyphenate, I believe (Italian-American, etc.) The rest of you are on your own has to how you do it.

As to offense taken, not given, I'd go back to my point about insensitivity. You don't have to mean offense, but if you know a term is offensive, and you use it, it's hard to understand why you would think it would be understood otherwise. You may want to think that words shouldn't have political weight, but they do. Because they have emotional weight. Or, perhaps emotional weight is enough to give one pause.

 

[britbox]

Maybe if you just called people Americans and judged them on individual behaviour it might solve part of the problem.

 

[Moxie]

Maybe if you just called people Americans and judged them on individual behaviour it might solve part of the problem.

I would love that. I'm one that believes race is a false construct, but it's an evolution. The term "African-American" itself is fraught with problems, because of the complicated admixtures and history. But if we don't acknowledge that people with browner skin and less-privileged ethnic backgrounds don't have more problems in our society (US,) then we're also putting our heads in the sand. It's a process, which people of good faith are trying to work through, together.