ND Offers White Privilege Course

[Rhode Irish]

So are we to assume that the determining factor in access to the power structure in this country is supreme talent, or white skin color? In the last Presidential Administration, we had two black Secretaries of State (Powell and Rice), a black Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Jackson), a black Secretary of Education (Paige), and a black Attorney General (Holder). Now we have a black President, and have black cabinet members in: Attorney General (Holder), Transportation(Foxx), and Homeland Security (Johnson). So at what point do you; meaning you, Rhode Irish, say that this is no longer indicative of supreme talent alone, and is also indicative of fair access to the system?

I don't know if this is a serious question or not, but I'll answer as if it is and if I missed the joke then shame on me. There is no singular determining factor, and certainly nobody (or just about nobody) has ever filled any position by saying "just get me the whitest guy...he'll do." That there are or have been a half dozen or so black persons in the executive branch, or another on the Supreme Court or a dozen or two in congress doesn't really prove anything, other than black people are capable of doing important jobs. The point at which there will clearly be fair access to the system is when black people are represented at all levels throughout the power structure in the same proportion as they are represented in the census, I guess. But it goes beyond that. Even if that ever happens and blacks continue to be arrested, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated at higher levels for the same crimes then it will not have really solved the problem. Having access to the system is a contributing factor but it isn't itself the whole problem. The problem is that, in general, the system treats black people differently than it treats whites. I'm sure there are exceptions you can find, but that isn't the point. As long as there is an institutional bias for one set of people and/or against another set of people, then the system isn't fair.

 

[GoldenDome]

I can't believe there are people out there who really think like this. It has to be trolling, it just has to.

Giants fan killed in Dodger Stadium parking lot laid to rest - MLB - ESPN

A whole six comments.

 

[ickythump1225]

Giants fan killed in Dodger Stadium parking lot laid to rest - MLB - ESPN

A whole six comments.

Okay but since Michael Brown was killed, justifiably might I add, by a police officer there have been whites killed by police. Where is the national outrage? Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Where is CNN? If Darren Wilson was black or Michael Brown was white we'd have heard nary a peep from the national media about that incident.

'Justice for Dillon Taylor' sought for white Utah man fatally shot by black officer - Washington Times

No riots or overwhelming 24/7 coverage there. Al Sharpton's not there exploiting that community.

 

[GoldenDome]

Okay but since Michael Brown was killed, justifiably might I add, by a police officer there have been whites killed by police. Where is the national outrage? Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Where is CNN? If Darren Wilson was black or Michael Brown was white we'd have heard nary a peep from the national media about that incident.

'Justice for Dillon Taylor' sought for white Utah man fatally shot by black officer - Washington Times

No riots or overwhelming 24/7 coverage there. Al Sharpton's not there exploiting that community.

But in the case with the Dogders incident, the scenarios were nearly the same. Both involved arguments, except one lost their life, which you would think is worse. But Bryan Stow was painted as this loving White male with a lovely family and saved people's lives as an EMT. My question is, what made Bryan Stow's situation any more significant than the other guys. You hear the name Bryan Stow and many people know his name and his scenario. On the other hand, you hear name Marc Antenocruz and you say 'who?'.

I may be missing something but there has to be an explanation for this discrepancy. The way I see it, is that a Mexican gangmember killing a Mexican in eyes of many is not newsworthy. But a Mexican killing a White dude, is newsworthy to many. Why was there so much media attention for one and not the other? Oh, and much of the media coverage ignored the fact that Bryan Stow's BAC was .176, dude was trashed and yelling obscenities during the game. I mean I feel sorry for him, but I also feel sorry for the other Giants fan who lost his life so young, a student by the way attending Mt. SAC.

 

[MNIrishman]

Okay but since Michael Brown was killed, justifiably might I add, by a police officer there have been whites killed by police. Where is the national outrage? Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Where is CNN? If Darren Wilson was black or Michael Brown was white we'd have heard nary a peep from the national media about that incident.

'Justice for Dillon Taylor' sought for white Utah man fatally shot by black officer - Washington Times

No riots or overwhelming 24/7 coverage there. Al Sharpton's not there exploiting that community.

Here's where there should be real outrage in the Michael Brown case: https://imgur.com/gallery/5sFZG

 

[kmoose]

The point at which there will clearly be fair access to the system is when black people are represented at all levels throughout the power structure in the same proportion as they are represented in the census, I guess.

So the color of person's skin, and/or their ethnicity should be the determining factor in "fair access"? Even if a person of another is better qualified, they should be excluded because the numbers say that we need another black lesbian single Chinese mother of 3?

It was not a joke or an attempt to troll. The point that I am trying to make is that, to minorities(not just black people, but any minority, including areas where white people are minorities), it seems that if things are not to their liking, it is always because the system is biased against people of their ethnicity. It's never because "We as a people don't place enough emphasis on education in our families. Because of that our children are less educated and, as an average, less qualified for the positions where they could most help us rise up out of our disadvantage." Just because people of color are not proportionally represented in the power structure, that doesn't leave institutionalized racism as the only possible explanation. It might be, or it might not be. Most likely, the truth is that it is a contributing factor of indeterminate magnitude. I guess my main point is this: We definitely have to change a lot of minds in this country, about what racism is and how prevalent it is. But not all of those minds belong to whites.

 

[wizards8507]

The point at which there will clearly be fair access to the system is when black people are represented at all levels throughout the power structure in the same proportion as they are represented in the census, I guess.

2:20

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/FmiVlyAfTnw?t=2m20s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[GoldenDome]

So the color of person's skin, and/or their ethnicity should be the determining factor in "fair access"? Even if a person of another is better qualified, they should be excluded because the numbers say that we need another black lesbian single Chinese mother of 3?

It was not a joke or an attempt to troll. The point that I am trying to make is that, to minorities(not just black people, but any minority, including areas where white people are minorities), it seems that if things are not to their liking, it is always because the system is biased against people of their ethnicity. It's never because "We as a people don't place enough emphasis on education in our families. Because of that our children are less educated and, as an average, less qualified for the positions where they could most help us rise up out of our disadvantage." Just because people of color are not proportionally represented in the power structure, that doesn't leave institutionalized racism as the only possible explanation. It might be, or it might not be. Most likely, the truth is that it is a contributing factor of indeterminate magnitude. I guess my main point is this: We definitely have to change a lot of minds in this country, about what racism is and how prevalent it is. But not all of those minds belong to whites.

Many of the more discriminatory and stereotypical people I know are not White. In many less culturally diverse settings, their is some form of racism against particular demographics. But is this a result of history or present treatment that is holding these minority groups from being more accepting of the majority?

Maybe a little of both, or a lot of one and a little of the other. I can tell you this though, I have seen first hand presently that racism still exists at a large degree, even here in SoCal. I can only imagine how it would be in other less diverse areas of the country.

One of my relative's wife is White and they are an interracial marriage. There have been multiple times where there have been fights in the parking lot simply because he married a White woman.

 

[Rhode Irish]

So the color of person's skin, and/or their ethnicity should be the determining factor in "fair access"? Even if a person of another is better qualified, they should be excluded because the numbers say that we need another black lesbian single Chinese mother of 3?

It was not a joke or an attempt to troll. The point that I am trying to make is that, to minorities(not just black people, but any minority, including areas where white people are minorities), it seems that if things are not to their liking, it is always because the system is biased against people of their ethnicity. It's never because "We as a people don't place enough emphasis on education in our families. Because of that our children are less educated and, as an average, less qualified for the positions where they could most help us rise up out of our disadvantage." Just because people of color are not proportionally represented in the power structure, that doesn't leave institutionalized racism as the only possible explanation. It might be, or it might not be. Most likely, the truth is that it is a contributing factor of indeterminate magnitude. I guess my main point is this: We definitely have to change a lot of minds in this country, about what racism is and how prevalent it is. But not all of those minds belong to whites.

Yeah, I'm not arguing for a quota. A quota won't fix any of the root problems, which is why I said 'X' number of black people in positions of power basically means nothing to the underlying issues. If the system is fair in all aspects, then equilibrium will be achieved naturally.

You're making the specious and unoriginal argument that there is no racism and minorities are just lazy and don't have good values (or some such variation thereof), which is pretty common among a certain set of people with really strong opinions and very little actual understanding. This attitude is why the first comment I made in this thread was asking whether a community that is 99% middle-aged and middle class white men is capable of having an intelligent discussion about this.

You say that if things aren't to someone's liking they are too quick to blame racism; I don't think being disproportionately arrested, charged, convicted and incarcerated compared to white people committing the same crimes is ever going to be to anyone's liking. Like they (or we) should just accept that is how the system is ("if you don't like it, tough" as my parents used to say about the justice system in my house growing up). Nobody is going to just accept being treated unfairly, and we shouldn't accept people being treated unfairly either.

 

[kmoose]

You're making the specious and unoriginal argument that there is no racism and minorities are just lazy and don't have good values (or some such variation thereof), which is pretty common among a certain set of people with really strong opinions and very little actual understanding.

No. I'm not making that argument. I'm asking for racial activists to consider that there are other possibilities, other than racism, for the inequalities of life.

 

[Rhode Irish]

No. I'm not making that argument. I'm asking for racial activists to consider that there are other possibilities, other than racism, for the inequalities of life.

First of all, I'm not a "racial activist." I'm just a guy with an opinion. Second of all, of course there are reasons other than race for inequalities among any given set of people - to suggest that I think otherwise indicates to me that you haven't read much of what I've written here or are unwilling to consider it carefully. But that has literally nothing to do with the question of whether there are disadvantages to being born black in America.

Acknowledging that those disadvantages exist does not mean they cannot be overcome by some individuals, or that life is impossible or that every failure a person experiences can be laid at the feet of someone else. It just means that, on the whole, life is more difficult than it needs to be if the system was perfectly fair.

All of your argument (and you are not alone in this) is rooted in philosophy, specifically in the idea of self-determinism and the ability of the individual to decide his or her own course. My argument is not a philosophical one. It is based on empirical data that says some people are treated differently than others by society's institutions. It isn't about boot-strapping or values or anything else (those things are important but they are irrelevant to what I am talking about). It is about justice and fairness and equality as more than a platitude.

 

[IrishLax]

I hesitated on making a big post on this topic, but now that NJNP won't derail this thing I think I'm going to.

Truth is "White Privilege" is both very real, and very misunderstood. It's also an incredibly clumsy term, and its catchall nature is what leads to so much angst in its use.

 

[BeauBenken]

I hesitated on making a big post on this topic, but now that NJNP won't derail this thing I think I'm going to.

Truth is "White Privilege" is both very real, and very misunderstood. It's also an incredibly clumsy term, and its catchall nature is what leads to so much angst in its use.

What I tried to get at earlier in the thread when I said:

I think that a lot of posters here are ignorant to the idea of what is referred to as "White Privelege", but I also think that most the people who throw that term around have their heads so far up their ass it is unbelievable.

 

[kmoose]

First of all, I'm not a "racial activist." I'm just a guy with an opinion. Second of all, of course there are reasons other than race for inequalities among any given set of people - to suggest that I think otherwise indicates to me that you haven't read much of what I've written here or are unwilling to consider it carefully. But that has literally nothing to do with the question of whether there are disadvantages to being born black in America.

Acknowledging that those disadvantages exist does not mean they cannot be overcome by some individuals, or that life is impossible or that every failure a person experiences can be laid at the feet of someone else. It just means that, on the whole, life is more difficult than it needs to be if the system was perfectly fair.

All of your argument (and you are not alone in this) is rooted in philosophy, specifically in the idea of self-determinism and the ability of the individual to decide his or her own course. My argument is not a philosophical one. It is based on empirical data that says some people are treated differently than others by society's institutions. It isn't about boot-strapping or values or anything else (those things are important but they are irrelevant to what I am talking about). It is about justice and fairness and equality as more than a platitude.

I was not meaning to point to you and say, "racial activist"! I was just using our discussion to try to make a larger point. It was not intended to be personal. I did ask your specific view on one issue, but then I (not obviously) change gears to address a larger movement of people. I apologize for the ambiguity there.

My problem with your empirical data is that it is incomplete. Incarceration rates say that black men are locked up in jail more often than white men, despite being a smaller percentage of the overall population. But it is just assumed (by racial activists) that the rate of incarceration is unwarranted, and based solely upon the prejudice of others. Are those incarceration rates broken out according to felonies and misdemeanors? According to first-time vs. repeat offenders? Of High School graduates vs. dropouts? All of those things can impact a person's experience in the judicial system, and has nothing to do with race. We already know that the single biggest determining factor, for incarceration, is a two parent family. Those with single parent families are MUCH more likely to be locked up. So instead of looking at race, how about if we look at it from that standpoint? How many black males grow up in a single parent family, as opposed to white men? Are the incarceration rates in line with that? If so, is that a byproduct of the white man trying to keep blacks down, or is it more indicative of a problem with black men abandoning their parental responsibilities?

 

[ginman]

More to the point- If you disagree or have an alternative position, personal attacks become necessary.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I was not meaning to point to you and say, "racial activist"! I was just using our discussion to try to make a larger point. It was not intended to be personal. I did ask your specific view on one issue, but then I (not obviously) change gears to address a larger movement of people. I apologize for the ambiguity there.

My problem with your empirical data is that it is incomplete. Incarceration rates say that black men are locked up in jail more often than white men, despite being a smaller percentage of the overall population. But it is just assumed (by racial activists) that the rate of incarceration is unwarranted, and based solely upon the prejudice of others. Are those incarceration rates broken out according to felonies and misdemeanors? According to first-time vs. repeat offenders? Of High School graduates vs. dropouts? All of those things can impact a person's experience in the judicial system, and has nothing to do with race. We already know that the single biggest determining factor, for incarceration, is a two parent family. Those with single parent families are MUCH more likely to be locked up. So instead of looking at race, how about if we look at it from that standpoint? How many black males grow up in a single parent family, as opposed to white men? Are the incarceration rates in line with that? If so, is that a byproduct of the white man trying to keep blacks down, or is it more indicative of a problem with black men abandoning their parental responsibilities?

There is really an extensive amount of literature and research behind this, and your ignorance* of it does not mean that "racial activists" "just assumed" it to be unwarranted. A good example is the difference in mandatory punishment for crack (a stereotypically "black" drug) vs. cocaine (a stereotypically "white" drug). Despite the fact that whites use schedule II drugs at a rate at least proportional to blacks, blacks end up in prison for longer periods of time and in much higher numbers.

Which is not to say that drug use is ok, or that because drug penalties are unevenly applied, all blacks are doomed. But it does say something about the way our society is structured, which leads to your next point. Single parent households are a problem. But is that really surprising when 5% of your adult male population is incarcerated? There's a pretty serious feedback loop in effect, which makes it difficult to sort out the self inflicted damage with the damage inflicted by the underlying structure of the system.

I think liberals, in general, focus too much on the systemic harm while conservatives focus on the self-inflicted side. The reality is that if America is going to reach its true potential as a nation, both sides of the balance need correcting.

As a white male, I view it as my responsibility to focus on the systemic side of the equation. There are plenty of black advocates out there who are fighting to focus on education, family values, staying out of jail, etc... They don't need my voice telling them how to fix their problems. And I think that's what people like NoJusticeNoPeace found so disturbing about a lot of the comments being made by (white, males) on IE. There is something stunningly condescending about telling someone that their race should just go fix itself. On the other hand, systemic change is something we all have a stake in. We might not all agree on the best rules out there, but I think we can agree that our system should treat everybody equally, regardless of skin color. To the extent that it doesn't, that is a problem for all of us: white, black, yellow, brown, and everything in between.



*just to be clear, I am not calling you ignorant. I think you're a wonderful poster who adds a lot of value to IE and I'm mildly upset that you stopped doing your post-game recaps over the last few games of the season. I use the word "ignorance" here in a very narrow context- based on your comments, it appears to me that you have not read any of the academic studies on systemic racial inequality.

 

[Emcee77]

There is really an extensive amount of literature and research behind this, and your ignorance* of it does not mean that "racial activists" "just assumed" it to be unwarranted. A good example is the difference in mandatory punishment for crack (a stereotypically "black" drug) vs. cocaine (a stereotypically "white" drug). Despite the fact that whites use schedule II drugs at a rate at least proportional to blacks, blacks end up in prison for longer periods of time and in much higher numbers.

Which is not to say that drug use is ok, or that because drug penalties are unevenly applied, all blacks are doomed. But it does say something about the way our society is structured, which leads to your next point. Single parent households are a problem. But is that really surprising when 5% of your adult male population is incarcerated? There's a pretty serious feedback loop in effect, which makes it difficult to sort out the self inflicted damage with the damage inflicted by the underlying structure of the system.

I think liberals, in general, focus too much on the systemic harm while conservatives focus on the self-inflicted side. The reality is that if America is going to reach its true potential as a nation, both sides of the balance need correcting.

As a white male, I view it as my responsibility to focus on the systemic side of the equation. There are plenty of black advocates out there who are fighting to focus on education, family values, staying out of jail, etc... They don't need my voice telling them how to fix their problems. And I think that's what people like NoJusticeNoPeace found so disturbing about a lot of the comments being made by (white, males) on IE. There is something stunningly condescending about telling someone that their race should just go fix itself. On the other hand, systemic change is something we all have a stake in. We might not all agree on the best rules out there, but I think we can agree that our system should treat everybody equally, regardless of skin color. To the extent that it doesn't, that is a problem for all of us: white, black, yellow, brown, and everything in between.



*just to be clear, I am not calling you ignorant. I think you're a wonderful poster who adds a lot of value to IE and I'm mildly upset that you stopped doing your post-game recaps over the last few games of the season. I use the word "ignorance" here in a very narrow context- based on your comments, it appears to me that you have not read any of the academic studies on systemic racial inequality.

Hear hear.

 

[Bubbles]

There is really an extensive amount of literature and research behind this, and your ignorance of it does not mean that "racial activists" "just assumed" it to be unwarranted. A good example is the difference in mandatory punishment for crack (a stereotypically "black" drug) vs. cocaine (a stereotypically "white" drug). Despite the fact that whites use schedule II drugs at a rate at least proportional to blacks, blacks end up in prison for longer periods of time and in much higher numbers.

I keep seeing this and wondering if this is really a race-related, or more related to the types of crimes typically surrounding its use.

e.g. if weed makes you slightly more likely to steal munchies, but meth makes you more likely to try to dry your wife's head in the microwave after bathing; in my mind it makes sense to have harsher penalties for the latter.

I know very little about drugs though, so can't say whether one or the other is more typically associated with violent crimes or not.....just curious.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I keep seeing this and wondering if this is really a race-related, or more related to the types of crimes typically surrounding its use.

e.g. if weed makes you slightly more likely to steal munchies, but meth makes you more likely to try to dry your wife's head in the microwave after bathing; in my mind it makes sense to have harsher penalties for the latter.

I know very little about drugs though, so can't say whether one or the other is more typically associated with violent crimes or not.....just curious.

4 biggest myths about crack - Salon.com

I've never tried either, so I can't say for sure, but this article might answer some of your questions.

edit to add a direct answer from the article:

2. Crack vs. coke. The only difference between the crack and powder forms of cocaine is the removal of hydrochloride, which allows for a higher melting point, and the ability to be smoked.

Crack cocaine is typically produced by mixing powder cocaine with baking soda and water over heat. The process removes hydrochloride and allows for an oily freebase of cocaine to float above the liquid residue. Separated, the freebase cocaine dries into a rock-like shape. But on a molecular level, crack and powder cocaine are still nearly identical.

What makes crack cocaine more potent is not its form, but the method by which it is ingested. As with other substances, smoking creates a quicker, more intense high than snorting.

Nonetheless, the law treats crack as if it were far more potentially damaging or threatening to society than powder cocaine. Before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, federal criminal penalties for crack treated 1 gram of the drug as equal to 100 grams of cocaine.

Now, the disparity has been reduced to a still large 18:1 weight ratio.

edit 2, this part surprised me

Despite racialized images of crack users, data from National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) reveals that people reporting cocaine use in 1991 were 75% white, 15% black, and 10% Hispanic. People who admitted to using crack were 52% white, 38% black, and 10% Hispanic. From a rational perspective, these numbers should not be surprising: whites are, after all, the majority, and have a long-standing tendency to use drugs at rates higher than blacks. Nonetheless, in 2009, the U.S. Sentencing Commission released data showing no drug matches crack in terms of racially biased convictions. According to the data, 79% of 5,669 sentenced crack offenders were black, 10% were Hispanic, and only 10% were white.

If you want raw data showing white privilege, it's tough to get more direct than that.

 

[Bubbles]

4 biggest myths about crack - Salon.com
/snip

Interesting article, if dubious source.

Report on Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy | United States Sentencing Commission

Seems to indicate a somewhat higher incidence of violent crime, but could also have to do with the much higher incidence of violent crime in the gangs/dealers of crack vs cocaine.

 

[kmoose]

There is really an extensive amount of literature and research behind this, and your ignorance* of it does not mean that "racial activists" "just assumed" it to be unwarranted. A good example is the difference in mandatory punishment for crack (a stereotypically "black" drug) vs. cocaine (a stereotypically "white" drug).

What do the statistics say about the correlation between violent crime and crack, vs. violent crime and cocaine? Maybe the reason for the difference in sentencing is valid, based on violent crime rates? Or maybe the reason for the difference is that small time crack dealers were found to most often be a part of gangs that would take care of the dealers' financial obligations while they were in prison, and put them right back out dealing as soon as they got out? And maybe those same circumstances didn't exist for cocaine?

Despite the fact that whites use schedule II drugs at a rate at least proportional to blacks, blacks end up in prison for longer periods of time and in much higher numbers.

What do the statistics show about the crimes associated with the drug use? It's possible that there is more property crime associated with black drug use than white drug use? And that the other crimes, and not the drug use, are the real reason for harsher treatment?

Single parent households are a problem. But is that really surprising when 5% of your adult male population is incarcerated? There's a pretty serious feedback loop in effect, which makes it difficult to sort out the self inflicted damage with the damage inflicted by the underlying structure of the system.

According to statistics, 67% of black children grow up in a one parent household. If 5% of the men are in jail, pardon my bluntness, but wtf are the other ~30% of black fathers doing? Don't blame jail on the failure of the black family.

I think liberals, in general, focus too much on the systemic harm while conservatives focus on the self-inflicted side. The reality is that if America is going to reach its true potential as a nation, both sides of the balance need correcting.

Exactly. I am asking for the racial activists to meet me halfway, in the discussion. I know that there is still racism out there. But there are also more resources than ever, to overcome that bias. And the ability to "out" the racism is like never seen before, with social media and the like. So I reject the notion that the plight of the underprivileged cannot be overcome, simply because of some kind of cultural bias in the system. Will some be left behind? Absolutely. There are poor people who have the advantage of white privilege, and still remain poor. So of course some of those who don't have the same advantages will be left behind. But there is not an impenetrable layer of institutional bias wrapped around people of color, in today's world.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Interesting article, if dubious source.

Report on Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy | United States Sentencing Commission

Seems to indicate a somewhat higher incidence of violent crime, but could also have to do with the much higher incidence of violent crime in the gangs/dealers of crack vs cocaine.

I mean the basic point is that the difference between the two is literally water and baking soda. It is insane that that lead to a 100x multiplier in the penalty.

 

[ickythump1225]

But in the case with the Dogders incident, the scenarios were nearly the same. Both involved arguments, except one lost their life, which you would think is worse. But Bryan Stow was painted as this loving White male with a lovely family and saved people's lives as an EMT. My question is, what made Bryan Stow's situation any more significant than the other guys. You hear the name Bryan Stow and many people know his name and his scenario. On the other hand, you hear name Marc Antenocruz and you say 'who?'.

I may be missing something but there has to be an explanation for this discrepancy. The way I see it, is that a Mexican gangmember killing a Mexican in eyes of many is not newsworthy. But a Mexican killing a White dude, is newsworthy to many. Why was there so much media attention for one and not the other? Oh, and much of the media coverage ignored the fact that Bryan Stow's BAC was .176, dude was trashed and yelling obscenities during the game. I mean I feel sorry for him, but I also feel sorry for the other Giants fan who lost his life so young, a student by the way attending Mt. SAC.

Why was there media coverage for Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner but not any white people who die in semi-controversial ways? Where is the media coverage for black on black homicide? You find one assault, which didn't garner that much media attention (certainly a drop in the bucket compared to Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner) and now it means that only white deaths are newsworthy? Dude white people die every single day. White people have died under far shadier circumstances than Brown or Garner but where is the national media outrage? Where are the protests?

Where was the national media outrage when Officer Henwood was murdered in cold blood and then his memorial was desecrated by "protesters"?
https://imgur.com/gallery/5sFZG

Where are the "calls for justice" for Zemir Begic? The man who was brutally murdered by "protesters" in Ferguson?

Where is the motherf**king outrage over this:

One man was killed and three people are in custody following an incident in the Arrowhead Stadium parking lot during Sunday's Broncos-Chiefs game.

The MMQB's Robert Klemko reported that a white male in his mid-20s died just after 5 p.m. CT -- approximately 90 minutes after kickoff. The unidentified man was inside a car when its owner arrived, and "a struggle ensued." According to Klemko, the man to whom the car did not belong was taken to the hospital and later died. He had not been shot or stabbed.

a white male in his mid-20s died

Man killed in Arrowhead Stadium parking lot during Broncos-Chiefs game - Audibles - SI.com

I'm not going to hold my breath for any burned down buildings or "die-ins" over that man's untimely demise. What was his name huh? Since his death was clearly worthy of national outrage since he was white and all. He got one little news story and that's it.

 

[Bubbles]

I mean the basic point is that the difference between the two is literally water and baking soda. It is insane that that lead to a 100x multiplier in the penalty.

Yeah...didn't want to start an argument, just curious if there was a reason other than race. cheers

 

[ickythump1225]

4 biggest myths about crack - Salon.com

I've never tried either, so I can't say for sure, but this article might answer some of your questions.

edit to add a direct answer from the article:




edit 2, this part surprised me



If you want raw data showing white privilege, it's tough to get more direct than that.

Drug usage sentencing guidelines =/= intent to distribute guidelines. Attempting to sell narcotics will get your ass locked up for a lot longer than using narcotics. It's also a lot harder to be caught doing drugs than than it is selling, and drug use is often treated as a rehab issue for first time offenders. Just because more white people use crack doesn't mean more white people deal crack.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Drug usage sentencing guidelines =/= intent to distribute guidelines. Attempting to sell narcotics will get your ass locked up for a lot longer than using narcotics. It's also a lot harder to be caught doing drugs than than it is selling, and drug use is often treated as a rehab issue for first time offenders. Just because more white people use crack doesn't mean more white people deal crack.

That's a good point, and it raises questions that I don't have time to research right now.

 

[Nick Setta]

Drug usage sentencing guidelines =/= intent to distribute guidelines. Attempting to sell narcotics will get your ass locked up for a lot longer than using narcotics. It's also a lot harder to be caught doing drugs than than it is selling, and drug use is often treated as a rehab issue for first time offenders. Just because more white people use crack doesn't mean more white people deal crack.

Yeah please enlighten us on how you know that last statement. By the way there's this CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GoIrish41]

There is really an extensive amount of literature and research behind this, and your ignorance* of it does not mean that "racial activists" "just assumed" it to be unwarranted. A good example is the difference in mandatory punishment for crack (a stereotypically "black" drug) vs. cocaine (a stereotypically "white" drug). Despite the fact that whites use schedule II drugs at a rate at least proportional to blacks, blacks end up in prison for longer periods of time and in much higher numbers.

Which is not to say that drug use is ok, or that because drug penalties are unevenly applied, all blacks are doomed. But it does say something about the way our society is structured, which leads to your next point. Single parent households are a problem. But is that really surprising when 5% of your adult male population is incarcerated? There's a pretty serious feedback loop in effect, which makes it difficult to sort out the self inflicted damage with the damage inflicted by the underlying structure of the system.

I think liberals, in general, focus too much on the systemic harm while conservatives focus on the self-inflicted side. The reality is that if America is going to reach its true potential as a nation, both sides of the balance need correcting.

As a white male, I view it as my responsibility to focus on the systemic side of the equation. There are plenty of black advocates out there who are fighting to focus on education, family values, staying out of jail, etc... They don't need my voice telling them how to fix their problems. And I think that's what people like NoJusticeNoPeace found so disturbing about a lot of the comments being made by (white, males) on IE. There is something stunningly condescending about telling someone that their race should just go fix itself. On the other hand, systemic change is something we all have a stake in. We might not all agree on the best rules out there, but I think we can agree that our system should treat everybody equally, regardless of skin color. To the extent that it doesn't, that is a problem for all of us: white, black, yellow, brown, and everything in between.



*just to be clear, I am not calling you ignorant. I think you're a wonderful poster who adds a lot of value to IE and I'm mildly upset that you stopped doing your post-game recaps over the last few games of the season. I use the word "ignorance" here in a very narrow context- based on your comments, it appears to me that you have not read any of the academic studies on systemic racial inequality.

Outstanding post. Just outstanding.

 

[ickythump1225]

Yeah please enlighten us on how you know that last statement. By the way there's this CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't say I know for sure, I just said usage =/= selling so it is quite possible that while more white people partake in the use of crack, that doesn't mean that the same percentage of white people deal crack. People use products everyday that they don't make or distribute themselves.

And wikipedia? Really? I also see how that proves that white people get lesser punishments for distributing crack than blacks. I'm sure the CIA does some really shady covert s**t to support their larger mission, just like the ATF sold guns to gun runners under Eric Holder, however the idea that the CIA started selling drugs to specifically destroy black communities is akin to believing in big foot, chem trails, or Michael Brown's partner in crime's rendition of events on the day he was shot. Fairy tales.

 

[ND NYC]

do I need to read thru this threadd?
what's the gist of this thing?
reps to the one who summarizes all this in one post, fewest words wins