The Trayvon Martin Case

[Selden]

Thanks, Bob. Your answers pretty much close this thread for me.

[Fubar]

Gotta add my 2 cents.

First, we need to stop calling everything regarding different skin colors or ethnic backgrounds "racial". We are all of one race, we are human, you know, the human race.

From Wikipedia (an easy source): "among humans, race has no taxonomic significance: all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens." In other words, WE ARE ALL ONE RACE. We can interbreed and have fertile offspring from those unions.

 

Yes, it is easier to continue to refer to differences as racial than what they are, but it is incorrect. Just because person A has more or less melanin in their skin due to their predecessors having been relatively isolated and inbred (like every grouping on the globe until the last couple of hundred years) than person B does NOT make them a separate race.

 

We all started from one pair and only over thousands and thousands of years of walking did we manage to spread across the globe. We grouped in small bands throughout this time and bred amongst ourselves and the few other such bands we came across in our immediate vicinity or were taken captive in some kind of raid or traded as a slave. The differences come from being isolated from other groups for tens of thousands of years.

 

We've only been able to move around to any real degree on a regular or easy basis for a couple of hundred years at best. Not very long in evolutionary terms.

 

So, whether our skin is darker because we needed more protection from the sun or our noses are wider because we ran more and needed greater airflow to effectively chase game or run from predators or our noses have a hook to them or we are more likely to be left-handed or blond or short are all factors that were determined by long periods of need and natural selection based on where a specific group lived for millenia on end, not because we are a separate race.

 

 

On to the post.

Due to insanely stupid laws, enforcement (or lack of) said laws, and the fact that the victim was dead and black, Zimmerman got the O.J. pass. But, unless the state chooses to appeal the decision and better prosecution occurs, he walks free. Another gun-toting cop wannabe with delusion of the Old West wanders the streets and neighborhoods of Florida. Lock your [censored]ing doors.

[upflying]

I totally agree, we are all members of the same race, the human race. Depending on your beliefs, we all had the same mother and father.

Unfortunately membership in the human race comes with drama, emotions, distorted thinking, ignorance, bias and prejudice. I reckon there has been some progress in changing thoughts, it will never be fully controlled.

In the meantime, I do not predict improvements in the racial divide. I think recent events have made it worse.

[tallman]

Mark,

 

No appeal by State, double jeopardy.

[Ken H.]

James, want to send you a PM but your box is full.

[Fubar]

I totally agree, we are all members of the same race, the human race. Depending on your beliefs, we all had the same mother and father.

Unfortunately membership in the human race comes with drama, emotions, distorted thinking, ignorance, bias and prejudice. I reckon there has been some progress in changing thoughts, it will never be fully controlled.

In the meantime, I do not predict improvements in the racial divide. I think recent events have made it worse.

Short term, the situation is worse, at least in some places. Long term, I fervently hope these events push us to a better, more equal, society.

 

Humans seem to want/need to divide everything. We have continents, countries, states/provinces/cantons/etc., counties, cities, neighborhoods, even subsets of neighborhoods, houses, rooms, parts of rooms (that's where MY stuff goes!). When I call the morons who manage my HOA, the first question they invariably ask is "Which neighborhood?". I tell them my name and my physical address and that is all. Truth be told, I've lived in this house 13 & 1/2 years, I drive by a sign every time I enter, but I don't even know the development's name. (Nor do I give a fat baby's ass.) People ask me where I live I tell them Sarasota, Florida. Unless they are coming over to my house, what more do they need?

 

Tim,

I had forgotten about the double jeopardy clause. Thank you for reminding me.

Unless Zimmerman admits to credible witnesses that he planned to kill Martin or there is other substantial new evidence found, no new trial will be forthcoming. He's free to be followed and presumed a threat by any other gun-toting vigilante in this state. (How deliciously ironic that would be!)

[FLrider]

He's free to be followed and presumed a threat by any other gun-toting vigilante in this state. (How deliciously ironic that would be!)

 

Delicious ? Really?

 

What would be delicious is if he moved to your neighborhood, became your HOA crime watch guy and just kept on walking as some "kid" beat the crap out of you because he didn't like the length of your hair....

 

Even better....a black kid....

[10ovr]

He's free to be followed and presumed a threat by any other gun-toting vigilante in this state. (How deliciously ironic that would be!)

 

Delicious ? Really?

 

What would be delicious is if he moved to your neighborhood, became your HOA crime watch guy and just kept on walking as some "kid" beat the crap out of you because he didn't like the length of your hair....

 

Even better....a black kid....

[Couchrocket]

James,

 

I, for one, don't think you need to have an epiphany.

 

Your questions don't have a Boolean answer, IMO.

 

Often the answer to your questions isn't yes, or no... it is "both/and."

 

- Is it "racial profiling" if from that point on you pay special attention to young black males walking through the neighborhood? Call it what you will, even I have to admit that if I'm the neighborhood watchman, I'm going to "racially profile"!

 

In a case such as this it may be appropriate to "profile" the characteristics of the of the criminals one is seeking to apprehend. In this case, race and or ethnicity (or other more culture based distinguishing characteristics) can be helpful. On the other hand, this kind of profiling needs to have a basis in the particular statistical evidence of the situation addressed. E.g. 80% of the robberies in this neighborhood in the last six months have been committed by turban-wearing Sikhs. On that basis, keeping an eye out for skulking, turban-wearing Sikhs may be legitimate. Far too often, however, no such statistical basis is used, and an anecdotal "sense of things" is used instead (spell that bias of one sort or another.)

 

- Is it a legitimate example of "racism"?

 

Not always, as described above, but sometimes it absolutely is racism, even if "unintended" by the biased individual. Often this kind of racism doesn't ring the awareness bell of the person who holds it.

 

- At what point does racial profiling add to the "racial divide"? I may be preventing burglaries, but am I adding to a greater problem--the idea that any sort of law enforcement is hostile to young black men?

 

Unfortunately, it almost always adds to the racial divide, even when it is justified by the "real" circumstances. This is one area where real conversation between community members and multi-racial participation could be valuable in defusing and healing the divide in this area.

 

- Who is ultimately responsible for this "racial divide"--the watchman who profiles or the young black men who commit the crimes?

 

Both, or neither. Again, depending on whether the profiling is justified by "real" circumstances. In many cases it falls to those of any "distinguishable category" who are the major offenders in crime. And then again, it is exacerbated by "watchmen" who profile out of either overt racial prejudice, or an unaware institutional racism.

 

- What of the innocent young black man and his "American experience"? Isn't he entitled to the same social respect all other young men enjoy? How do I profile criminals yet respect the rights of the innocent?

 

This one is the 64 million dollar question. There is no doubt in my mind that young black men in America have a 20 mph headwind in life, even today after some considerable progress has been made. One of the keys to making progress in this arena is for us "white guys" to recognize that fact, and to be willing to challenge our own assumptions and attitudes. I've come to the point in my own life where my own discomfort and "internal reaction" have become a signal for me to take a step backward and wrestle with my inner, deepest self, to see what is really going on "in there." I have adopted (for myself alone - I'm honestly not preaching) a position that I am individually responsible to do as much as I can do to heal the racial divide. I feel that, even though I didn't ask to be born "white privileged" that I need to recognize that I am, and that I have a responsibility to "reach the other way first" to show myself friendly, approachable, fair-minded. Some would, and do, accuse me of being elitist/racist for having this mind-set, but I'd rather take that risk than to do nothing and by doing nothing help to perpetuate a deep seated problem that desperately needs the light of day and the love of God in the lives of individuals to heal.

[beemerman2k]

James, want to send you a PM but your box is full.

 

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize we were alloted only so many PM's.

 

Dang, what am I going to do? I don't want to delete any of my PM's! I have PM's dating back to 2005 from members who are no longer among us. OK, I'll have to go through there and find what I can jettison.

[Couchrocket]

Dang, what am I going to do?

 

Copy the text of some of the important ones and create a Word Doc to keep them! I have a whole folder full of both PM's and posts that are significant to me.

[Dave McReynolds]

Different cultural values among different groups of people have led to conflict throughout human history. In fact, I would say that the differences between blacks and whites in this country are on the milder side of the scale, which is pretty remarkable considering that blacks were introduced to this country as slaves of whites. I think the average black and white person can sit down together and enjoy each other's company in many, if not most circumstances. We can work together, play together, marry each other, and care about each other. Not everybody in all circumstances, but if you exclude the worst black and white ghettos, most people in most circumstances. Compare the depth of our mistrust of each other with Jew/Muslim, Armenian/Turk, Hutu/Tutsi, English/Irish, Serbian/Croatian, etc.

 

In fact, compare it with the level of mistrust and hatred between northern and southern whites before the Civil War. The latest books on the subject have concluded that the primary reason for the Civil War was not slavery, economics or states' rights. Those were all solvable without the need for a war, by reasonable people . They conclude, with interesting arguments to back them up, that the reason war was inevitable was because the northerners and southerners basically couldn't stand each other.

 

So I would like to think that my many good friends who are black, and your many good friends who are white, can figure this out together.

[SWB]

So here's a question, and I ask in all sincerity. I ask myself this often and I have trouble coming up with an answer that I can accept that is also consistent with other principles I hold dear to.

 

Here's my question: let's say that you are George Zimmerman (my question, of course, predates this incident, but I will use it to illustrate my point), and your job is to be a neighborhood watchman. Since coming on board, there have been 10 breakin's in the neighborhood, 9 of which were committed by young black males.

 

- Is it "racial profiling" if from that point on you pay special attention to young black males walking through the neighborhood? Call it what you will, even I have to admit that if I'm the neighborhood watchman, I'm going to "racially profile"!

 

Given G.Z.'s background, and the evidence thus far (including 911 tape with dispatcher), there's nothing that indicates that "being back" was necessarily one of his "watch" criteria. In fact, any "profiling" (e.g. including TSA of air travelers) that relies exclusively on nationality or race would ultimately be ineffective. But certainly skin color, ethnic background, clothing, hair style, as well as behavior are legitimate criteria.

 

Proper profiling looks for things out of place. Those things could be as simple as knowing the people who live at the house that someone at 11pm at night is loitering around. Heck, it could be me looking at a new fence of a neighbor down the street while I'm walking my dog, but if another neighbor found it suspicious, I wouldn't call him a racist or nut for his suspicions. We have at least a couple of black families in the neighborhood, probably more than that because I don't know all my neighbors in our 200 some housing complex, and we have many Marine families in the area. I see their kids around the neighborhood and think nothing of it.

 

I hope this observation does not offend you, but in my opinion the racism attributed to G.Z. was "projection" by people who were racists themselves. No one knows the mind of G.Z., and what he "really thinks" about African American's, but there's nothing in the public record that supported the charge that he racially profiled T.M..

 

 

- Is it a legitimate example of "racism"?

 

No.

 

- At what point does racial profiling add to the "racial divide"? I may be preventing burglaries, but am I adding to a greater problem--the idea that any sort of law enforcement is hostile to young black men?

 

- Who is ultimately responsible for this "racial divide"--the watchman who profiles or the young black men who commit the crimes?

 

How about the race baiters who exploit tragedies for purposes other than justice or reconciliation? Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? Any fault there? There certainly are racist people in this country, some white, some black, some Indian Am., some Korean, Chinese, Japanese - there are all types. There's no rhyme nor reason for attributing the actions of one person to another, based on race, religion ALONE. It's a whole different thing if it's based on facts and history, e.g. I've changed from open and comfortable with Muslims to far less tolerant of them, because of the last 15 years of attacks, as well as my personal interactions with some Muslims.

 

(Example: Nice family, great kids, coach their kids in baseball, known the gentleman for years, patronize his local businesses, he's Persian and Muslim, but one day, the subject turns to Jews and it's ... "kill em all..liars, thieves, murders, their the reason for all the injustice in the Middle East, stole Palestine, etc. and etc.". Well, when that happens enough times with different Muslims, plus what I see or read in the news, maybe the "Religion of Peace" isn't quite so.)

 

 

- What of the innocent young black man and his "American experience"? Isn't he entitled to the same social respect all other young men enjoy? How do I profile criminals yet respect the rights of the innocent?

 

Yes, he is entitled to the same social respect, and that includes the same treatment as anyone else if he "profiles" to be in the wrong place at the inappropriate time. You profile accurately by dealing with the facts, and skin color is one of many other facts we use. Black young men get respect the same way everyone else does - they earn it. I can't tell a cop who'd been in 30 fights and arrests with young black men in 60 days in the inner city that he's a bigot and racist for "profiling" black into his equation. He's trying to do his job and stay alive. Neither should a deputy sheriff in a "all white" county (if such a thing still exists) be faulted for profiling a new kid wandering around town at night who happens to be "distinctively" black. In both cases, they should be professional and let the facts inform their actions, not skin color.

 

Let me give you an example of a non-racist misunderstanding which occurred in my own house. My family has helped out quite of few Marine and Marine families over the past 10+ years. It's nothing special, we're here, we're military or ex-military, and it's what we do. We've "taken in" many "strays", e.g. Marines who's motorcycles or cars have quit along the road, we are storing one young Marine's Harley in our garage while he's in Afghanistan, and so forth. My son works at Home Depot and encountered a young Marine looking for a tool for his Ducati. My son knew what he needed and that this young man was a bit out of his element, so he invited him over after work to bring his Ducati back up to speed. It turned out to be a lot bigger job than he originally anticipated, e.g. major brake problems, and he ended up leaving it in our garage for a week or so.

 

When the Marine came over to pick it up, he brought along a fellow Marine who happened to be black. His friend was an outstanding Marine and buddy, who told him in no uncertain terms "Hey, you know I'm not letting you ride that bike home without good brakes, it just ain't happening ...".

 

In any case, we worked on the bike more to get it minimum road worthy, and invited the two to come back any time, play some pool, drink some more of our beer, etc. I made a point of shaking the black Marine's hand and said, "you're definitely welcome here, we just have regular Red Neck garage.." pointing to the Harleys, BMW's, Ducati's, ammo loading set up, TV, and beer filled fridge. He hesitated and looked at me for a long moment, and it took me a minute to realize that I may have offended him. I said, "by Redneck Garage I mean we have bikes, beer, a pool table, guns, and occasionally a pretty girl or two showing up, and Marines are always welcome here". He said, "OHHhh, OK. I thought that maybe you meant that I WASN'T welcome..".

 

I was a embarrassed, but just a bit, by causing him discomfort rather than making him feel welcome. My comment was legitimately color blind, and he legitimately heard a different meaning from what I intended.

 

Yes, we need to "fix" latent racism issues, but spinning up a self-defense case into a racist civil rights case, and pressing the conflict "accelerator" even after two investigations, one prosecution, and one jury exoneration, will do NOTHING to improve race relations. Do the black activists think that more Tawana Brawley and Duke Lacross "rape" cases, or a rail-road prosecution of a "White" Hispanic man who saved his own life with a gun, is going to turn non-Blacks towards a national Kumbaya moment on national race relations? Maybe it would bring the country together if blacks honestly assessed T.M.'s background and actions, and while agreeing with "white America" that his death was sad, also say "I don't want my son to be a Trayvon", I don't want him to be "gangsta", to describe whites as "crackers", to smoke pot, to commit a burglary (or hold stolen property), to commit assault and battery. Would it not better help to honestly assert, "YES, TRAY IS ONE OF THE KIDS WE COULD HAVE SAVED, but it didn't happen, and we have to figure out why". The answer is not "because Zimmerman murdered him in cold blood..". The answer is not another march, protest, riot, or a series of attacks against innocents.

 

True, black crime rate is an issue influencing attitudes towards black youths. I heard a black activist on one of the cable news channels claim that the only reason that black crime rates are higher by several 100% than any other sector of the population is due to unjust, racist arrests and prosecutions. Really?

 

James, I can't imagine being anything other than a friend to you, regardless of culture or color, because of the content of your character. In fact, I think I first "met" you on this forum when you loaned me a BMW tool. I didn't know it was a "black" BMW tool. It was just a loan from a new friend that I hope to repay one day. We may not agree on social issues, but that's what a colorblind American is supposed to be about. It's the ISSUE's that may separate us, but not skin color or our humanity, and THAT diversity is what America is all about.

 

But as I said in an earlier post, if the minimum requirement for "peaceful relations" between blacks and whites is my acceptance of the occasional OJ Simpson murders, the Brawley or Duke cases, or the railroading of a liberal Democrat Hispanic named Zimmerman for defending his life with a handgun, then I don't see likely grounds for reconciliation.

 

I'd be the first, the VERY FIRST to defend a black neighbor and his family against say, a racist attack OR robbery or assault regardless of the perp's background. Or, to loan him a rake or a tool for his BMW. I think Zimmerman would do the same.

 

Best regards,

 

Scott

[Huzband]

Due to insanely stupid laws, enforcement (or lack of) said laws, and the fact that the victim was dead and black, Zimmerman got the O.J. pass. But, unless the state chooses to appeal the decision and better prosecution occurs, he walks free. Another gun-toting cop wannabe with delusion of the Old West wanders the streets and neighborhoods of Florida. Lock your [censored]ing doors.

 

Unbelievable.

[tallman]

Different cultural values among different groups of people have led to conflict throughout human history. In fact, I would say that the differences between blacks and whites in this country are on the milder side of the scale, which is pretty remarkable considering that blacks were introduced to this country as slaves of whites. I think the average black and white person can sit down together and enjoy each other's company in many, if not most circumstances. We can work together, play together, marry each other, and care about each other. Not everybody in all circumstances, but if you exclude the worst black and white ghettos, most people in most circumstances. Compare the depth of our mistrust of each other with Jew/Muslim, Armenian/Turk, Hutu/Tutsi, English/Irish, Serbian/Croatian, etc.

 

In fact, compare it with the level of mistrust and hatred between northern and southern whites before the Civil War. The latest books on the subject have concluded that the primary reason for the Civil War was not slavery, economics or states' rights. Those were all solvable without the need for a war, by reasonable people . They conclude, with interesting arguments to back them up, that the reason war was inevitable was because the northerners and southerners basically couldn't stand each other.

So I would like to think that my many good friends who are black, and your many good friends who are white, can figure this out together.

 

Dave,

 

Historically, the overwhelming majority, by far, of all Africans brought to the Americas as slaves went to South America and the Caribbean.

In those places, the discrimination we have/had in our country isn't institutionalized and is apparently not the issue it is here.

 

So, why not?

If the act of bringing people hundreds of years ago to the Americas as slaves is the reason why we have our problems today,

why then is/are the same problem(s) not prevalent throughout the Americas?

 

Meant as an open question, not a challenge of POV to you.

[Huzband]

Unless Zimmerman admits to credible witnesses that he planned to kill Martin or there is other substantial new evidence found, no new trial will be forthcoming. He's free to be followed and presumed a threat by any other gun-toting vigilante in this state. (How deliciously ironic that would be!)

 

You didn't pay any attention to the evidence or Zimmermans history w/regard to his relationships with black kids, did you? Unbelievable x2.

[Dave McReynolds]

Tim,

 

Your comment further illustrates my question.

 

I would think that if my ancestors were uprooted and brought to a strange land in chains, I might be inclined to hate those people and their descendants, as much as many within the other groups I mentioned hate each other. Instead, in the US and even moreso in your examples, assimilation has been less painful. Perhaps in your examples, it could be because there was more intermarriage earlier on?

[beemerman2k]

Quick note: racial issues are big issues in South America (Brazil especially), and Central America. In those societies, the darker your skin the less likely you'll get ahead, it's sort of an unwritten rule (could even be written for all I know). If you watch Latin American television, you'll quickly notice that they are where we used to be a few decades ago, the bad people are portrayed by black actors, the good people by white actors. In Brazil, the poorest people are the black people, period.

 

Having said all of that, the culture of the descendants of Africa seems to be more alive and welcome in these countries than it is here. In the USA, we attach stigmas to African culture--primitive, evil, satanic, ignorant--whereas in Latin/South America, African culture has even intermingled with the Catholic Church imagery, so it is not held as something evil or dirty.

 

Still, I am of the opinion that the most enlightened place to live from a racial perspective is the USA. I say that for this reason: in the USA, people may be ignorant of other cultures and might accidentally offend, but our national and dearly held ideal is for excellence to rise to the top, regardless of any other variables such as race, gender, or whatever. We aren't there yet, but I think that there are very few people out there who are opposed to this ideal. In the USA, there are no rules--written or otherwise--that suggest the darker your skin the less socially mobile you become.

[Selden]

Historically, the overwhelming majority, by far, of all Africans brought to the Americas as slaves went to South America and the Caribbean.

In those places, the discrimination we have/had in our country isn't institutionalized and is apparently not the issue it is here.

I think you may have an idealized perception of racial harmony in societies in the Caribbean and in South America. I worked with a Haitian for several years, and I can assure you that upper class (i.e., light) Haitians look down on darker skinned Haitians, and being a Haitian in the Dominican Republic subjects one to all sorts of discrimination. Google for "racial discrimination in [name-that-country] and you will find plenty of examples.

 

Discrimination/fear of "the other" seems to be part of our character as a species.

[1springer]

Unless Zimmerman admits to credible witnesses that he planned to kill Martin or there is other substantial new evidence found, no new trial will be forthcoming. He's free to be followed and presumed a threat by any other gun-toting vigilante in this state. (How deliciously ironic that would be!)

 

You didn't pay any attention to the evidence or Zimmermans history w/regard to his relationships with black kids, did you? Unbelievable x2.

 

Unbelievable doesn't begin to describe it....yet there are many that have this same opinion!

[1springer]

.....you think the comment is unbelievable you should have just heard the interview of an Illinois congressman by Hannity on Fox news. I hope Fox makes this interview available.

[longjohn]

...And a live Trayvon is better for us why? He was a bad man (not that cute 12 yr old they paraded the pictures of - the 17 yr old with a drug issue, assault record, wannabe gangster leanings, etc. as shown on his & friends' Facebook pages). Does anyone think he'd grow up & be a model or even productive citizen? Once he attacked GZ he crossed a line and miscalculated by picking someone who although smaller was able to defend himself...

 

 

I find this statement very offensive.

 

Should we round up all young men who you judge to have no value for "us" and get rid of all of them?

 

"Drug issue"..."wannbe gangster leanings" (whatever that means) of a 17yo is now enough for you to know he won't grow up to be a "productive citizen"?

 

 

Thanks for diplomatically saying what I was thinking.... I couldn't believe what I had read and was dumbfounded... unfortunately, that is a prevailing pattern in this case... evaluating the worth of the victim because of his recent behavior. Just pathetic.

Yep, I'm surprised the mods allowed it. Offensive to say the least!!!

[beemerman2k]

It's late and I have to sign off early tonight, but I do have yet another question that will sort of return us back to the original spirit of the conversation. Here it is in short: Joe Friday shared that he found it both offensive and somewhat incredulous the idea that white people would be willing to hire "racist" cops who kill blacks carelessly and therefore cost their municipalities millions of dollars in legal settlements. To Joe, this idea is both offensive and ludicrous. Why? Because it is a poor reflection on the real, honest to goodness character of the vast majority of white people in this country! That's why it is so offensive.

 

Bob (upflying) found my portrayal of that Mass State Police officer who pulled me over on my new BMW motorcycle to be somewhat difficult to believe. He didn't call it offensive or ludicrous, but I got the sense from him that it sorta bordered on that. Why? Because in all of his years serving as a police officer, and given all his personal experiences and those of his colleagues, the thought of pulling over a man on his new BMW motorcycle simply because of his race does not accurately reflect the nature of the officers character or the nature of their work. It is a portrayal of them that is both offensive and ludicrous to Bob's way of thinking.

 

With me so far? Good.

 

OK, Bob and Joe, fair enough. Now, IMAGINE living in a world where your white skin means that the "majority" black population (remember, we are imagining things right now) in the USA presumes that you are so racist, that you would hire cops to kill black people and you would profile motorists--why? Simply because you are white! Not only that, but these black people, who make up a majority of the country you live in, are your school teachers, government officials, court personnel, and employers! Here you are, busting your butt daily at work, yet you suspect your employer sees you as yet another racist simply because of the color of your skin. You literally have to train less able black employees who will soon become your new boss (yeah, I know, affirmative action :smirk:). Every night, you see news stories of white people committing atrocious acts--presumably because they are white! And when you walk into a store, or through a neighborhood, or to the executive branch at work, you get the sense that you are distinctly noticed by the security guards who are wondering what you're doing there.

 

At what point do you begin to interpret their "offensive and ludicrous" understanding of who you are as racist? At what point do you portray these majority black Americans as having offensive and ludicrous attitudes toward you and your people simply because of the color of your skin? At what point do you begin to understand why -- back here in the real world -- black people do NOT assume that Martin was up to no good and that is why he is dead? When you profile--and that's something you may well have to do at times--you offend the profiled with your inaccurate and ludicrous portrayal of their character! Unless, of course, you are right about them :smirk:

 

In other words, if you are offended by the inaccurate and ludicrous portrayal of your attitudes and professionalism by this black man (me), imagine how black people in general, and black men in particular, feel about the fact that even in this thread the unanimous sentiment is that it's justifiable to profile young black men?! Can you now see how over time (and profiling has been going on for about as long as the USA has been here, it's not a new phenomenon) black people begin to understand that we are "marked" as being trouble-makers? Yes, to us, this inaccurate and ludicrous portrayal of our nature is highly offensive! I can assure you my brother, the MD doing research at T-Cell Sciences, did not look like a gang banger. He sorta looked like Urkel, of television fame :smile:

 

Again, I am not trying to sell anybody anything, justify any behavior or attitudes, I am only trying to bring about understanding. I want you to understand, using your own experiences and the fact that under similar circumstances you also get offended, how us black men feel everyday of our lives. To me, it's not right ("it" being anger, or offense, or racial hypersensitivity, or bitterness ideology, or victim ideology, or etc), it's not justifiable, it's not excusable, but can you understandable some of the factors that foster it?

 

Fantastic. Once you understand the idea, you can address the idea in ways that black people will understand. Congratulations, you just bridged the racial divide! You just won a dear friend who now knows that there is nothing inherent in being a white American that prevents one from appreciating what non-white Americans endure so often that it's now considered as being "under the radar". It's something so assumed that it's kinda like the air we breath.

 

Doesn't require agreement, or a compromise of ones standards. All it takes is understanding. Once you understand, you can reach people that no one else can. Only you know them well enough to be able to testify to the noble integrity and good will that the vast majority of white Americans have toward all who live in this country

[beemerman2k]

Yep, I'm surprised the mods allowed it. Offensive to say the least!!!

 

I want to shout out a hearty "thank you" to the moderators for their hands off approach to this thread. I think I made it clear that this is a good place for open and honest communications, and that this thread is not the place to hang out if you have thin skin or are easily offended. Matters of race are among the most difficult topics we can discuss in our society. I can assure you that if I did not have a default-"world of respect" for every member of this forum, and especially the forum moderating staff, I wouldn't be so open and interested in hearing everyone's honest thoughts about race. But I've been here long enough to appreciate the noble integrity of the members in this community. Good and healthy values are so important to this group, if someone did say something that reflected poorly on this community, a number of members would step in and call that person to task, just as in this case (although I know Jim well enough to not take offense to his thoughts. I appreciated his meaning, even if I didn't quite agree with him).

 

I take nothing said personally, and I am not about to let anyone's words offend me.

 

Having said that, I think I understood where DiggerJim was coming from. He was challenged on his meaning by other members, and he clarified his position. That's exactly the way mature people are supposed to handle their miscommunications. Not by silencing or censoring, but by challenging, thinking, clarifying, and even be willing to be corrected at times.

 

If we're going to make progress, we have to learn to check our emotions and egos at the door so to speak. We can get offended, or we can gain understanding. I trust we all prefer understanding.

 

So thank you moderating staff for entrusting this thread to those of us who are participating in it to be a self-policing group and to keep things healthy, constructive, challenging, and to risk even causing offense every now and then. I am so much more wiser from learning all the different views shared in our conversation on race. In fact, I can think of no other place in all the world, cyber or otherwise, where I would feel this at home discussing these thorny topics

[longjohn]

Yep, I'm surprised the mods allowed it. Offensive to say the least!!!

 

I want to shout out a hearty "thank you" to the moderators for their hands off approach to this thread. I think I made it clear that this is a good place for open and honest communications, and that this thread is not the place to hang out if you have thin skin or are easily offended. Matters of race are among the most difficult topics we can discuss in our society. I can assure you that if I did not have a default-"world of respect" for every member of this forum, and especially the forum moderating staff, I wouldn't be so open and interested in hearing everyone's honest thoughts about race. But I've been here long enough to appreciate the noble integrity of the members in this community. Good and healthy values are so important to this group, if someone did say something that reflected poorly on this community, a number of members would step in and call that person to task, just as in this case (although I know Jim well enough to not take offense to his thoughts. I appreciated his meaning, even if I didn't quite agree with him).

 

I take nothing said personally, and I am not about to let anyone's words offend me.

 

Having said that, I think I understood where DiggerJim was coming from. He was challenged on his meaning by other members, and he clarified his position. That's exactly the way mature people are supposed to handle their miscommunications. Not by silencing or censoring, but by challenging, thinking, clarifying, and even be willing to be corrected at times.

 

If we're going to make progress, we have to learn to check our emotions and egos at the door so to speak. We can get offended, or we can gain understanding. I trust we all prefer understanding.

 

So thank you moderating staff for entrusting this thread to those of us who are participating in it to be a self-policing group and to keep things healthy, constructive, challenging, and to risk even causing offense every now and then. I am so much more wiser from learning all the different views shared in our conversation on race. In fact, I can think of no other place in all the world, cyber or otherwise, where I would feel this at home discussing these thorny topics

I thought it was thinly veiled racism, which is not supposed to be allowed. Just my opinion.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

OK, Bob and Joe, fair enough. Now, IMAGINE living in a world where your white skin means that the "majority" black population (remember, we are imagining things right now) in the USA presumes that you are so racist, that you would hire cops to kill black people and you would profile motorists--why? Simply because you are white!

...

At what point do you begin to interpret their "offensive and ludicrous" understanding of who you are as racist?

...

Can you now see how over time (and profiling has been going on for about as long as the USA has been here, it's not a new phenomenon) black people begin to understand that we are "marked" as being trouble-makers? Yes, to us, this inaccurate and ludicrous portrayal of our nature is highly offensive!

...

Again, I am not trying to sell anybody anything, justify any behavior or attitudes, I am only trying to bring about understanding. I want you to understand, using your own experiences and the fact that under similar circumstances you also get offended, how us black men feel everyday of our lives.

 

I see what you're trying to do with your "imagine" scenario, although the fact that it's hypothetical makes it just that little bit more distant than it perhaps ought to be. Maybe I can offer a real-world example that ought to strike a more far-reaching chord. Here it is:

 

If you're a man, you fit the profile of a child molester.

 

What's worse is that many people will profile you based on the fact that you are a man and they will act in a defensive manner. It's so bad that it's been codified in business policies. Think I'm kidding?

 

I'm not.

 

In March 2001, it was revealed that British Airways had a policy of not seating adult male passengers next to unaccompanied children (any person under the age of 15), even if the child's parents are elsewhere on the aircraft. This led to accusations that the airline considered all men to be potential paedophiles or hebephiles and women to be incapable of such abuse. The issue was first raised when a business executive had moved seats to be closer to two of his colleagues. A flight attendant then asked him to move because he was then sitting next to two unaccompanied children which was a breach of BA company policy. The executive said he felt humiliated as a result, stating "I felt I was being singled out and that I was being accused of something." British Airways admitted that staff were under instructions to keep men away from unaccompanied children whenever possible because of the dangers of male paedophiles.

 

It doesn't make me feel good about myself or about others' perceptions of me when I read stuff like this. Apparently I'm not alone:

 

The most high profile victim of the policy was politician (and later London Mayor) Boris Johnson, who criticised the company after staff mistakenly attempted to separate him from his own children on a flight. He stated that those who create or defend such policies "fail to understand the terrible damage that is done by this system of presuming guilt in the entire male population just because of the tendencies of a tiny minority", linking such discrimination to the reduced number of male teachers and therefore lower achievement in schools. Like others, Johnson also raised the policy's flaw in ignoring female abusers and branded airlines with such policies as "cowardly" for giving in to "loony hysteria."

 

Well THAT was interesting. Now we've got someone speaking of men's plight in the exact same tone as we usually hear activists speaking of the plight of black men.

 

If you're scoffing at all of this, try to imagine that you're the one seated on the plane with someone else's kid next to you, waiting for departure, when a flight attendant comes to you and loudly insists that you grab all your stuff and move to another seat because male adults aren't allowed to sit next to unaccompanied minors. The people seated around you are staring at you now, with their brains involuntarily summing two ideas: "pedophiles are almost always men" and "that passenger is a man." Would you be completely sympathetic, telling yourself "well, it's just unfortunate that I happen to share the same physical features as the typical child molester"), or would you be mad as hell about being singled out for your maleness, yelling "I'm not a goddam pedophile!"?

 

It's not just British Airways, and it wasn't just "many years ago;" this policy has been documented on four airlines, as recently as last year. And that attitude (you're man, so you might be a child molester) isn't restricted to the airlines. It's bad enough that I've heard some men say they would be reluctant to take charge of a lost child in a public place because they would fear reflexive accusations of evil intent.

 

Think you don't profile? Then answer this: how would you feel dropping your toddler off at a daycare facility staffed entirely by men?

 

If this sort of thing bothers you, then maybe you can be sympathetic to how a black person feels when he walks down the sidewalk and you lock your car door as he nears, or your wife clutches her purse just a little bit tighter.

[Jake]

Think you don't profile? Then answer this: how would you feel dropping your toddler off at a daycare facility staffed entirely by men?

 

Would these be gay men?

 

I must say I'm mighty impressed at the depth of thought in this thread (even though JFF shot down my theory by interjecting facts - I didn't plan for that). I'm also concerned for a few of you, or more particularly the proper maintenance of your motorcycles and your lives in general. Do you really carry the level of detail exhibited on this thread around in your heads? I'd feel much better if a few would admit to doing a few sporadic internet searches for case studies to make your points. I for one can state that my mind is full, though my heart is open.

 

Damned Detroit. Maybe Stevie Wonder will reconsider coming South.

[Dave McReynolds]

We even profile ourselves. I teach archery, usually in groups, but occasionally individual lessons. I won't teach a kid an individual lesson unless there is some other adult with us. I'm sure the thought of being accused of child molesting wouldn't have occurred to me 20 years ago, but it does now.

[Matts_12GS]

We even profile ourselves. I teach archery, usually in groups, but occasionally individual lessons. I won't teach a kid an individual lesson unless there is some other adult with us. I'm sure the thought of being accused of child molesting wouldn't have occurred to me 20 years ago, but it does now.

 

A good friend of mine didn't heed that advice and had his life ruined by a false accusation from a church youth group member. He saw the little darling hitchhiking and gave him a ride home to be helpful. When the parents got upset about hearing of the hitchhiking, junior concocted a story to try to save his own bacon.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

We even profile ourselves. I teach archery, usually in groups, but occasionally individual lessons. I won't teach a kid an individual lesson unless there is some other adult with us. I'm sure the thought of being accused of child molesting wouldn't have occurred to me 20 years ago, but it does now.

 

I'm not sure that's a case of profiling yourself; I think that's a case of you protecting yourself from being profiled by others.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

A good friend of mine didn't heed that advice and had his life ruined by a false accusation from a church youth group member. He saw the little darling hitchhiking and gave him a ride home to be helpful. When the parents got upset about hearing of the hitchhiking, junior concocted a story to try to save his own bacon.

 

And the kid's parents believed him, right? I mean it was totally plausible. Afterall, the vast majority of child molesters are men, and your friend is a man, so...

[Matts_12GS]

A good friend of mine didn't heed that advice and had his life ruined by a false accusation from a church youth group member. He saw the little darling hitchhiking and gave him a ride home to be helpful. When the parents got upset about hearing of the hitchhiking, junior concocted a story to try to save his own bacon.

 

And the kid's parents believed him, right? I mean it was totally plausible. Afterall, the vast majority of child molesters are men, and your friend is a man, so...

 

Yep, exactly.

[Mike]

A good friend of mine didn't heed that advice and had his life ruined by a false accusation from a church youth group member. He saw the little darling hitchhiking and gave him a ride home to be helpful. When the parents got upset about hearing of the hitchhiking, junior concocted a story to try to save his own bacon.

 

And the kid's parents believed him, right? I mean it was totally plausible. Afterall, the vast majority of child molesters are men, and your friend is a man, so...

 

Yep, exactly.

 

It's a sad world we live in, but this has been something I have personally been wary of. I'm crazy about kids and we always seem to have them showing up, hanging out with the dogs, "helping" in the kitchen ( ), etc., but I try to avoid being with them alone because of this very concern. It's another instance of how the world's creeps make things difficult for the rest of us.

[tallman]

James,

 

Let's move from imaginary.

My father in law died shortly after being beaten by 2 black men he opened his door to who inquired about lawn work.

One of my best friends in college was murdered by three black men he picked up hitch hiking.

My father was seriously injured in a mugging by two black men.

I was stopped at a red light when 2 black men ran up to the car.

It was a convertible.

One put a gun to my head and the other put a knife to my passenger's neck and demanded wallets keys etc.

I've got more but you get the point.

 

I've also been hit and run twice by white men, one a drunk, and

t-boned by a white female who ran a red light.

 

Balance that with friendships such as the head of our local NAACP, many members sports teams, co-workers, employees, friends

who are black.

 

In your scenario you ID'd the criminals (90% of crime done by)

as black.

In my reply I used 90%ers to stand for any group and said I'd profile that group, in that particular set of facts.

 

In my real world, I profile.

Depending on the what, where, when.

 

But, I profile an individual or small groups of people .

 

Why?

To be aware of my environment, to be prepared to act, to protect myself and family, if needed.

 

I do not consider myself a racist.

I do consider myself a realist.

 

The reality is, depending on where you are, and who is there,

one needs to be acutely aware of the moment.

Failure to do so is an abdication of my responsibility to my family as I have a duty to protect them and get myself home safely.

 

For real understanding, I think it is imperative for black

people to understand that some of us have had very bad experiences yet still strive to be first and foremost a member of the human race.

Best wishes.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

It's a sad world we live in, but this has been something I have personally been wary of. I'm crazy about kids and we always seem to have them showing up, hanging out with the dogs, "helping" in the kitchen ( ), etc., but I try to avoid being with them alone because of this very concern. It's another instance of how the world's creeps make things difficult for the rest of us.

 

It wasn't my intent to hijack this thread into a discussion of pedophilia paranoia, but you guys are doing an excellent job of making my point for me: this is a situation in which innocent men are by default the subject of suspicion because of their physical characteristics, and it affects how we go about our lives, how we feel about ourselves, how we feel about the people around us.

 

My intent was to maybe find some common ground, to find a basis for us non-black folks to understand how black folks feel when they are the subject of suspicion because of their physical characteristics. If you think you would feel hurt, embarrassed and angry when you get asked to change seats on an airplane (because there's an unaccompanied kid sitting next to you), or when moms in the park with their kids all watch you warily as you (a man walking alone) pass through the area, then maybe you can appreciate how James felt when the security staff followed him as he browsed Lord & Taylor.

[Mike]

It's a sad world we live in, but this has been something I have personally been wary of. I'm crazy about kids and we always seem to have them showing up, hanging out with the dogs, "helping" in the kitchen ( ), etc., but I try to avoid being with them alone because of this very concern. It's another instance of how the world's creeps make things difficult for the rest of us.

 

It wasn't my intent to hijack this thread into a discussion of pedophilia paranoia, but you guys are doing an excellent job of making my point for me: this is a situation in which innocent men are by default the subject of suspicion because of their physical characteristics, and it affects how we go about our lives, how we feel about ourselves, how we feel about the people around us.

 

My intent was to maybe find some common ground, to find a basis for us non-black folks to understand how black folks feel when they are the subject of suspicion because of their physical characteristics. If you think you would feel hurt, embarrassed and angry when you get asked to change seats on an airplane (because there's an unaccompanied kid sitting next to you), or when moms in the park with their kids all watch you warily as you (a man walking alone) pass through the area, then maybe you can appreciate how James felt when the security staff followed him as he browsed Lord & Taylor.

 

Good points. I think that it's also worth noting that, once you feel you've been identified as a member of "that group," whatever it might be, it often is the case that behavior that is in fact not discriminatory may be interpreted by you as being indicative of another's biases. As an example, I'd note that there are many times when I've been followed by security staff in high-end stores. Pisses me off, but my guess is that it's not particularly because of my appearance or ethnicity--I'm fifty-plus and white as a lily. However, if I were a black man I might well believe that it was happening because of my race.

[Selden]

But why do people keep bring Stand Your Ground into this discussion. The defense did not use a SYG defense and this was not a SYG case. The AG waded into these waters but that's clearly politics.

The prosecution brought up Zimmerman's knowledge of SYG resulting from attending a criminal law class at a community college. The defense may not have used SYG as a defense, but it was clearly part of the overall case.

 

Florida's SYG law is a mess: Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied. Even the law's sponsor acknowledges this:

 

Durell Peaden, the former Republican senator from Crestview who sponsored the bill, said the law was never intended for people who put themselves in harm's way before they started firing. But the criminal justice system has been blind to that intent.

 

[Twisties]

But why do people keep bring Stand Your Ground into this discussion. The defense did not use a SYG defense and this was not a SYG case. The AG waded into these waters but that's clearly politics.

The prosecution brought up Zimmerman's knowledge of SYG resulting from attending a criminal law class at a community college. The defense may not have used SYG as a defense, but it was clearly part of the overall case.

 

Florida's SYG law is a mess: Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied. Even the law's sponsor acknowledges this:

 

Durell Peaden, the former Republican senator from Crestview who sponsored the bill, said the law was never intended for people who put themselves in harm's way before they started firing. But the criminal justice system has been blind to that intent.

 

It was invoked in the initial investigation and clearly altered the course of the investigation. It MAY have caused some evidence to have been irretrievably lost.

 

It was probably a key factor in the Sanford city decision not to pursue charges, and the initial uproar over the case, that lead to it becoming politicized.

 

I think it had a profound impact on the case even if it was not formally invoked as a defense in court.

 

Beyond the Martin-Zimmerman case, the law blurs the line between assailants and victims, encourages violence and mayhem, and stands common sense and civil order on it's head.

[tallman]

So, pray tell, tell us how the law should read to put the law back on its feet?

 

If I'm lawfully acting in a place I have a legal right to be and I'm in fear for my life or serious harm, how should the law read and what should be different?

 

My wife and I are out to dinner, walking back to bike and accosted by 2 individuals who demand our money, then grab my wife and threaten her with a capital crime?

 

Should I run away?

After all I'm pretty fast for a short distance, you know retreat?

 

Please expound.

Thanks.

[Roadwolf]

Selden,

 

That was a great article on Stand Your Ground. Really shows how the law has taken a turn for the worse

 

""I think the (stand your ground) law has an emboldening effect. All of a sudden, you're a tough guy and can be aggressive,'' said George Kirkham, a professor emeritus at Florida State University who has worked as a police officer.

 

Criminologists say that when people with guns get the message they have a right to stand and fight, rather than retreat, the threshold for using that gun goes down. All too often, Bruce Bartlett, chief assistant state attorney for Pinellas-Pasco counties, sees the result.

 

"I see cases where I'll think, 'This person didn't really need to kill that person but the law, as it is written, justifies their action,' " Bartlett said about incidents that his office decides not to prosecute due to "stand your ground." "It may be legally within the boundaries. But at the end of the day, was it really necessary?"

[Huzband]

 

I think it had a profound impact on the case even if it was not formally invoked as a defense in court.

 

 

You're right, it did. Thanks to the main stream media. And thanks to them, Z is still being convicted in the court of public ( & administration) opinion.

[10ovr]

The way I see it,,This tread has nothing to do with SYG,,Nothing,,To me its a High Jack,,,It has nothing to do with this trial ,,,Someone should start a new tread on SYG if you want to talk about it,,,

[upflying]

If I'm lawfully acting in a place I have a legal right to be and I'm in fear for my life or serious harm,

Thanks.

Trayvon might have thought that too.

[Twisties]

So, pray tell, tell us how the law should read to put the law back on its feet?

 

If I'm lawfully acting in a place I have a legal right to be and I'm in fear for my life or serious harm, how should the law read and what should be different?

 

My wife and I are out to dinner, walking back to bike and accosted by 2 individuals who demand our money, then grab my wife and threaten her with a capital crime?

 

Should I run away?

After all I'm pretty fast for a short distance, you know retreat?

 

Please expound.

Thanks.

 

As I understand the former duty to retreat standard in most states, self defense was allowed in reasonable measure (commensurate with the threat). Most states also allowed defense of a third party. However, if you (and any third parties) could practically and safely withdraw (reasonably) then you needed to do so rather use force. I support that standard.

 

In your scenario there is no doubt that you are authorized to use lethal force under the old standard, assuming you reasonably believe the assailants have the means to carry out the threat. Duty to retreat and SYG would have had no bearing on that.

 

Mike Boomgarden said in another venue that SYG arose from abuses of the old standard where courts and juries held that persons had a duty to retreat rather than defend themselves in cases where many folk thought there was no reasonable means of retreat. I think, in particular, it was jury instructions that he was concerned about. I trust Mike's assessment as an experienced professional. So I believe there was a legitimate problem with the old law in some states.

 

I think SYG goes too far and is a clumsy approach at fix, for the reasons I laid out above, and a more appropriate approach would be for states to define the duty to retreat more clearly and carefully, rather than doing away with it altogether.

 

For instance, to me, if an assailant has a gun, or I reasonably think the assailant has a gun that dramatically changes my options for retreat. Basically any reasonable retreat needs to be more quickly and readily available than any defense I might have at hand and it needs to be bullet proof, and I need an expectation that help will arrive in a reasonable time so that I am not trapped there. Some thought is needed about how to properly define the duty to retreat.

 

One specific problem I have with the FL law is that it was forestalling investigation. At a minimum investigation of the circumstances needs to proceed to it's conclusion. The FL law specifically allows investigation to proceed, so I am not sure why investigations were halted, but it has been widely reported that is the case.

[Lester V]

Quick note: racial issues are big issues in South America (Brazil especially), and Central America. In those societies, the darker your skin the less likely you'll get ahead, it's sort of an unwritten rule (could even be written for all I know). If you watch Latin American television, you'll quickly notice that they are where we used to be a few decades ago, the bad people are portrayed by black actors, the good people by white actors. In Brazil, the poorest people are the black people, period.

 

Having said all of that, the culture of the descendants of Africa seems to be more alive and welcome in these countries than it is here. In the USA, we attach stigmas to African culture--primitive, evil, satanic, ignorant--whereas in Latin/South America, African culture has even intermingled with the Catholic Church imagery, so it is not held as something evil or dirty.

 

Still, I am of the opinion that the most enlightened place to live from a racial perspective is the USA. I say that for this reason: in the USA, people may be ignorant of other cultures and might accidentally offend, but our national and dearly held ideal is for excellence to rise to the top, regardless of any other variables such as race, gender, or whatever. We aren't there yet, but I think that there are very few people out there who are opposed to this ideal. In the USA, there are no rules--written or otherwise--that suggest the darker your skin the less socially mobile you become.

 

Canada might be an even more enlightened place than the US. We have the same cultural melting pot and a lot more mixed marriages. Oh, that and gay marriage etc

[Twisties]

 

I think it had a profound impact on the case even if it was not formally invoked as a defense in court.

 

 

You're right, it did. Thanks to the main stream media. And thanks to them, Z is still being convicted in the court of public ( & administration) opinion.

 

Are we allowed to comment on the administration now? I've lost count of the number of times it's come up in this thread (with or without specific figures named or otherwise identified). I wouldn't mind responding if it's allowed.

 

That aside, didn't this case only make it's way into the mainstream press after it went viral on social media? In fact, the initial charge was that it was being ignored, IIRC. Do you not think the matter has legs of it's own, touching on such matters of social importance? Why has this thread run on to such lengths and brought out such a deeply thoughtful conversation if this is simply a case of a media run amok?

 

I really don't buy the criticism of the media argument one iota.

[Huzband]

 

I really don't buy the criticism of the media argument one iota.

 

I know you don't. You buy in to their crap.

 

This case was nothing more than a local incident. I'm not a member of social media, so I can't speak to that. But I do know that once the mainstream media, & the race baiters, got hold of it, that's when it went viral.

 

As for it being initially ignored, what about the five hundred odd shootings & killings in Chicago? Z v M was only one.

[beemerman2k]

Great discussion so far. A bit contentious here and there, but great discussion.

 

Allow me to share another thought that is very important to me. It is easy to get caught up in the unfairness of life in America, how some live on easy street and others do not, and begin to want to pout and complain and whine and moan and...

 

That is not me. I am of the strong conviction that even as a black man, I live a more free life than the vast majority of white people on this planet. I live in a more enlightened society, I have a more accountable government, I live among more giving and noble people, and even if I have to endure an indignity every here and there, there are about a billion+ people wishing to their god they could take my place.

 

Please, never ever pity me or my fellow black Americans. And let me make this very clear; I do NOT pity any American citizen! In this country, you have the resources and the tools to create the kind of life you want for yourself. The only question is how much do you want it and what are you willing to sacrifice to get it--time? Money? Fun? Idleness? Good, get to work.

 

Also, every once in a while someone will say, "I am not a racist...". No kidding. As far as I am concerned, no one is one unless you decide to be one, and only you can decide that. I don't believe it is my place to say whether someone is a racist or not. And frankly, I don't care anyhow; I believe in "freedom of thought" and freedom of speech! Wanna sit down for some beer and conversation after the day's ride? Good, that's all I need to know about you

 

You might not have the best communication skills, and have to be asked for clarification, or you may not have the most vogue, PC views, or you may not have a best friend who is black, but none of these quality you as a racist. And honestly, I really don't believe in that term, anyhow. We are all the products of the best of our learning and understanding. Hopefully, we will continue to respect each other enough to engage in dialog for the sole purposes of learning and understanding and enlightening. All of us have something to contribute to the discussion and all of our views are important--they are to me anyhow. And I learn from everyone, including so-called "racists".

 

So I just wanted to say these things to place our current problems into their proper perspective. Yes, these are big deals, but really, not THAT big. Life is unfair everywhere. Within the range of life's unfairness, we in America see about, what, the bottom 5% of the worlds most egregious cases? Maybe not even that much :smirk:

 

What a bunch of whiners we can be at times.

[beemerman2k]

It's a sad world we live in, but this has been something I have personally been wary of. I'm crazy about kids and we always seem to have them showing up, hanging out with the dogs, "helping" in the kitchen ( ), etc., but I try to avoid being with them alone because of this very concern. It's another instance of how the world's creeps make things difficult for the rest of us.

 

It wasn't my intent to hijack this thread into a discussion of pedophilia paranoia, but you guys are doing an excellent job of making my point for me: this is a situation in which innocent men are by default the subject of suspicion because of their physical characteristics, and it affects how we go about our lives, how we feel about ourselves, how we feel about the people around us.

 

My intent was to maybe find some common ground, to find a basis for us non-black folks to understand how black folks feel when they are the subject of suspicion because of their physical characteristics. If you think you would feel hurt, embarrassed and angry when you get asked to change seats on an airplane (because there's an unaccompanied kid sitting next to you), or when moms in the park with their kids all watch you warily as you (a man walking alone) pass through the area, then maybe you can appreciate how James felt when the security staff followed him as he browsed Lord & Taylor.

 

Good points. I think that it's also worth noting that, once you feel you've been identified as a member of "that group," whatever it might be, it often is the case that behavior that is in fact not discriminatory may be interpreted by you as being indicative of another's biases. As an example, I'd note that there are many times when I've been followed by security staff in high-end stores. Pisses me off, but my guess is that it's not particularly because of my appearance or ethnicity--I'm fifty-plus and white as a lily. However, if I were a black man I might well believe that it was happening because of my race.

 

 

I enjoyed the presentation of this uncomfortable situation as a way of making the humility of profiling real to all the men on this forum.

 

And yes, Mike, some times you don't know if you're being treated poorly because of your race, or because you're just being treated poorly!

 

[beemerman2k]

Barkley agrees with Zimmerman verdict.

 

I couldn't agree more with this statement:

 

"I just feel bad because I don’t like when race gets out in the media because I don’t think the media has a ‘pure heart,’ as I call it,” Barkley said. “There are very few people who have a pure heart when it comes to race. Racism is wrong in any shape [or] form — there are a lot of black people who are racist, too. I think sometimes when people talk about race, they act like only white people are racist. There are a lot of black people who are racist. And I don’t like when it gets out there in the media because I don’t think the media has clean hands.”